Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wigan Corporation Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

North Staffordshire Railway Bill,

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water) Bill,

Marriages Provisional Order Bill,

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

Order read for consideration, as amended.

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Mr. SPEAKER: I would appeal to hon. Members not to press their objection to this and the other Bills of a similar character on the Paper.

Mr. W. THORNE: We are doing it for the sake of economy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I may point out that additional expense is involved to the ratepayers every time these have to be put down.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that private Members have the right to object to Bills?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not questioning that right; I only appealed for it to be used with discrimination.

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aberavon, Neath, and Swansea Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cardiff Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Newark Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shaftesbury Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Stoke-on-Trent Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Taunton Extension) Bill (by Order),

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Rotherham and Sheffield Extension) Bill (by Order),

Hamilton Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill (by Order),

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

GLASGOW COMMITTEE.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether notice of dismissal has been served on certain officials of the clerical staff of the local war pensions department in Glasgow; whether the regional division officer who served these notices was acting under the instructions of the Ministry of Pensions; and whether, in view of the Government
public inquiry into the administration of matters under the jurisdiction of the local war pensions committee and West of Scotland joint disablement committee, he will suspend these notices of dismissal until after this inquiry has been held?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The members of the Glasgow Local War Pensions Committee having tendered their resignations it became necessary at once to arrange for the carrying on of the work of my Department in that area. It was found necessary, in the interests of efficiency and economy, to reorganise the administration of business in the local office, and for this purpose it was considered advisable to give notice terminating the appointments of certain officials whose services in the posts then occupied by them were no longer required. As the administration of the Glasgow committee is not a matter with which the Committee of Inquiry referred to is concerned, I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that a number of the cases to come before the Committee of Inquiry are cases, the files and particulars of which are under the control of these officials who have been presented with their notices, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be advisable, in consideration of the fact that such an inquiry is going to be-held, to suspend the notices pending the inquiry and the Report on the result thereof?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The matter is very well in hand, and all the necessary files will be available for the inquiry.

Mr. MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Regional Director for Scotland has set up a body in place of the Glasgow Local War Pensions Committee called the Ex-Service Men's Advisory Committee; whether he can state if this committee holds meetings every week which are presided over by the Regional Director; whether he is aware that they have been issuing weekly reports to the Glasgow Press, in which references are made to the satisfactory state of affairs which exist in Bellahouston Hospital; whether he is aware that, in view of the public inquiry that is to be held into the administration of that hos-
pital, the committee for which has now been publicly announced, this is looked upon locally as an attempt to prejudice the work of that committee; whether he will state the names of the members of this Ex-Service Men's Advisory Committee and the organisations they represent; and whether he will suspend the operations of this body pending the inquiry and report of the committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On the resignation of the local war pensions committee for Glasgow, the regional director, under my instructions, deputed a responsible officer to take charge of the administration of the work of my Department in that area so that the interests of disabled men and other clients of the Ministry should not suffer by the default of the local committee. At the same time, he invited the more important organisations of ex-service men in Glasgow to nominate members to form an advisory committee The advisory committee is composed of ex-service men nominated by the British Legion, the Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, the Trainees' Protective and Welfare Union, and the Independent Grand Order of Ex-Service Men, together with a few members of the late divisional committees which acted under the local committee for the sub-districts of Glasgow. I am sending my hon. Friend the names of the members of the advisory committee. It is the case that this committee meets weekly under the chairmanship of the regional director, and that brief accounts of these meetings have appeared in the local Press. Bellahouston Hospital is, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, not under the direct management of the local committee, but of the Joint Disablement Committee for South West Scotland. But I am informed that the advisory committee obtained permission from the regional director to send; two deputations to visit that hospital. On receipt of their reports, the advisory committee placed on record their satisfaction of the general arrangements of the hospital in connection with the treatment of pensioners, without desiring to anticipate the findings of the Committee of Inquiry. I believe that some reference to this resolution of the advisory committee appeared in the local Press. I am not aware that this action of the advisory committee is looked upon locally as an attempt to prejudice the work of the Committee of Inquiry, nor,
in view of the fact that the great majority of men under treatment at Bellahouston are natives of Glasgow, and obtain their treatment at the hospital through the local war pensions committee, does it seem to me at all unreasonable that the advisory committee should have decided to ascertain for themselves that the existing conditions of treatment were satisfactory.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Glasgow papers in which these reports appear? Is it not the case that the reports submitted to the Press by this committee, which has been set up by the regional director, are, as they appear in the papers, entirely in reference to Bellahouston Hospital and not to the work done by the committee? Further, will he explain why the National Union of Ex-Service Men have not been invited to send representatives to that committee as the National Union of Ex-service Men—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot quite follow that, and I think the hon. Member had better put it on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement in regard to certain bodies representing ex-service men who have been invited to send representatives to this committee. There is in Glasgow a committee of ex-service men, the name of which has not been mentioned, and I am asking him if they have been invited to form part of this committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: That will require a fresh reference, and the hon. Member should put it down.

Mr. G. BARNES: Are the irregularities in Bellahouston Hospital in any way related to the dismissal of the men referred to in question No. 1, and, if so, can the dismissals not be suspended meanwhile?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No. My right hon. Friend is also misinformed. The Glasgow Local War Pensions Committee has nothing whatever to do with Bellahouston Hospital. It is purely a matter for the Glasgow and West of Scotland Joint Disablement Committee.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if a regional director who has a dispute with a local committee has
the right to suspend the operations of the local committee and appoint an advisory committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member is making a mistake. The Scottish regional director has no dispute at all with the Glasgow Local War Pensions Committee. Anything that is done is done under my instructions. I am determined to have full efficiency and economy in this part of Scotland.

Mr. LAWSON: Is there a possibility of extending that principle to other parts of the country?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Very likely.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a general question, and the question on the Paper is a local one.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

RATES OF PAY (GLASGOW).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether Bellahouston Hospital is being repainted and redecorated, and that ex-service men are being used to do this work at rates of pay considerably below the standard trade union rate; whether he has received any protest from the Scottish Painters' Society, who allege they have a large number of ex-service men who are members of their society unemployed at present, and who could be put on this work if the standard rates were paid; and whether he is prepared to give instructions to Colonel Henchely, or the responsible officer, that work done for Government Departments must be paid at trade union rates?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member is, I think, misinformed. The hospital is not being repainted and redecorated. During the process of spring cleaning certain wards and out-buildings have been cleaned and lime-washed by the hospital staff, all ex-service men in the employ and pay of the Ministry. The work does not require skilled labour, and I have not received any protest from the Scottish Painters' Society, but I understand that the position has been explained to a representative of that body.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the reply of the
representative of the painters' society to the statement made in explanation by those in charge of the hospital? The facts I have put down on the Paper were sent to me by this particular society?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Very likely, and I am glad to be in a position to correct the information given to the hon. Member. The fact is, as stated, that all the men employed are ex-service men.

Mr. MACLEAN: The point which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman is this: are there individuals doing work which is practically the work of the painters' society, are they being paid painters' society rates or are they being paid under those rates?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure about that. I am perfectly certain they are working to the satisfaction of themselves and of the Ministry. I have made every endeavour to employ only ex-service men and I shall make inquiry into the other matter raised by the hon. Member.

SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 95.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether ex-service men who satisfy a committee or an examiner that they would make efficient elementary school teachers are allowed a grant or maintenance allowance; and, if not, will he, in cases were special aptitude is shown, recommend that such a grant or allowance be made?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): Grants under the Government Scheme for the Higher Education of ex-service students have been made to more than 4,500 ex-officers and men to enable them to take courses of training for the teaching profession. Applications for assistance under this scheme were required to be lodged before the 30th June, 1920, and the Board have not felt justified in accepting applications lodged after that date except where the delay was due to some very special reason. Ex-service men who satisfy the Board that they are qualified for admission to a training college are eligible for assistance at the ordinary rates provided for in the Board's Regulations for the Training of Teachers.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

PRISONER'S DEATH.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the military authorities sent a bill for £34 4s. to the mother of the late Maurice Galvin for conveying the body of her son from Ballykinlar Camp to Tallow, County Waterford; what was the cause of the late Maurice Galvin's death at Ballykinlar Camp; and for what reason was he, a boy of 17 years, ever arrested?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the late Maurice Galvin was arrested as a lieutenant in the rebel forces. He died on 9th April from, uræmia, following acute nephritis. The relatives, on being notified, telegraphed to the Commandant of the Camp requesting him to despatch the remains to Tallow. Their wishes were complied with, but the military authorities have no power to defray expenses in cases of this kind.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of altering that state of affairs? May I have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are a great many questions on the Paper, and as many hon. Members as possible want to ask them in the time allotted.

MALICIOUS INJURY CLAIMS.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 5.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can yet make any announcement as to what steps will be taken in connection with malicious injury claims in Ireland, in view of the impossibility of injured persons obtaining from the local authorities the very large sums for whch judgment has been given?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, is at present engaging the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Captain W. BENN: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of compensation for the destruction of property where the victims are innocent has been considered by the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): This question is at present receiving the consideration of the Government.

Captain BENN: When will a decision be arrived at?

COLONEL LATYMER.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary if Colonel Latymer, lately commanding the company of auxiliary police stationed at Cork at the time of the burning of a large part of that city, is still suspended from duty; whether he has been tried, and, if so, with what result; and whether he is employed in any way in Ireland, and, if so, in what capacity?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, Colonel Latymer is at present doing duty with the Auxiliary Division as a temporary cadet.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary the number of houses that have been destroyed by order of the Crown forces, and the number destroyed in unofficial reprisals during this month; and the number of persons killed during the last fortnight and the number of ex-service men killed or wounded by Crown forces or by other persons?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of houses destroyed by order of the Military Governor in the martial law area during the period 1st May to 25th May is 25. If by "unofficial reprisals" the Noble Lord means destruction by members of the Crown forces without orders, I know of no such cases. A number of cases of incendiarism have followed outrages upon members of the Crown forces, but although careful inquiry has been made no evidence implicating any members of the Crown forces has been forthcoming. As regards the last part of the question, 20 police, 8 military, and 40 civilian deaths were reported by the police during the fortnight ended 28th May. Nine assassinations and two attempted assassinations of ex-service men attributable to Sinn Fein were reported during the period. There were no cases of ex-service men killed or injured by Crown forces during that period.

Captain BENN: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the policy of official reprisals has received the approval of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: The military have been authorised to take such action as is necessary and justified by our military code to suppress rebellion and to restore order.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the burning of houses as reprisals is justified by the military code?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about South Africa?

Mr. LUNN: 70.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has yet been held into the shooting on 9th May of a young man named Wynne, of Kilteevan, County Roscommon, who was killed in his house in the presence of his family; and whether any arrests have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Court of Inquiry in this case found death due to a gunshot wound inflicted by a member of the Crown forces in the execution of his duty. According to the military evidence a patrol which was searching for rebels found a bright light burning in this house at a late hour of the night and three men fully dressed were seen inside. It was decided to make an investigation. One of the men opened the door in response to a knock and the other two were ordered to put their hands up. Instead of doing so one of them blew out the light while the other made a dash for the inner door. A shot was thereupon fired and Michael Wynne was killed.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This was the answer prepared for me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—for which I am responsible, and for which I take responsibility. I regret that the last part of the question was not answered, and I will see that it is answered.

SHOOTINGS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the shooting, on 15th May, 1921, of the Rev. James O'Callaghan, a Catholic curate, in the house of Mr. de Roiste, M.P., at Cork,
and into the shooting at his house in Cork on the same day of Patrick Sheehan; and, if so, what were the findings of the court?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not yet received from the Commander-in-Chief the result of the Court of Inquiry in these cases, and I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will postpone his question till next Thursday.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Next Thursday!

Major M. WOOD.: 49.
asked the Chief Secretary what is the result of the inquiry into the death of John Geoghegan, said to have been killed by uniformed men at Moycullen on the 20th February last

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not in a position to add anything to the replies given to the hon. Member for Harrow on 21st April, and to the hon. Member for Pontypool on 13th May.

CASUALTIES TO WOMEN.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 10.
asked, the Chief Secretary the number of women murdered, kidnapped, and wounded, respectively, by Sinn Feiners in Ireland since 1st January, 1921?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number are: Murdered, 6; wounded, 7; kidnapped, 3. These figures do not include women who have been killed or injured as the result of bomb attacks made upon police and military lorries in the streets of Cork and Dublin, or of attacks made upon railway trains carrying civilian passengers. I shall circulate the further details of these Sinn Fein attacks upon women in a day or two.

CURFEW HOUR.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in the curfew and martial law areas, he will consider an extension of the curfew hour for children of 14 and under during the summer months?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In only a few cases is the curfew in force at an hour when children of 14 and under would not normally be in bed. The question of extension is one for the competent military authority.

DESTRUCTION OF HOUSES.

Mr. C. WHITE: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether an inquiry has been held into the alleged wrecking by the police of many houses at Castlerea, County Roscommon, on the 2nd August last; and whether any punishments have been inflicted?

Sir A. GREENWOOD: I have called for the Police Reports in reference to this matter and shall be glad if the hon. Member will kindly repeat the question one day next week.

Mr. C. WHITE: As this occurred in August last, is it not time some report had been received about it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Reports have no doubt been received, and in about 40 other cases of a similar kind embodied in questions to-day by the hon. Member and his Friends, all of them based on Sinn Fein propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "No,"and "Withdraw! "]

Captain W. BENN: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to questions on the Paper and their origin, and I have some questions down, can he be called upon to substantiate the statement he has just made imputing improper action to hon. Members?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the Chief Secretary should have used the words he did. It does involve suggestions against hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: As these three questions, repeated one after another on the Paper as if they had been handed out together in some way, lead naturally to that suspicion, would it not be better to avoid the suspicion by mixing them up?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we can all form our own judgment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of your opinion just given, the Chief Secretary ought not to withdraw his remark?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chief Secretary assented to what I said.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not observe it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member would be withdrawing rather continuously if I adopted a very punctilious attitude.

Mr. C. WHITE: May I ask you, Sir, whether a Member is not entitled to ask questions which have as their foundations reports in the public Press of this country? That is exactly what my questions are founded on.

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member is supposed to have some personal knowledge and to be able, primâ facie, to vouch for his statements. I do not think he is entitled to take any publication he sees, but he himself is the judge, and we must trust hon. Members not to make implications on one side or the other in these matters.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I say that my three questions are founded on documentary evidence from relatives of the sufferers?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am assuming the hon. Member's good faith. It is far from me to do anything else.

Major M. WOOD: 53.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any arrests have been made in connection with the destruction by members of the Crown forces of shops and houses at Feakle, County Clare, on the 7th October, 1920?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The inquiries which have been made have failed to elicit any information as to the persons by whom this destruction was committed, and no arrests have yet been made.

Mr. MOSLEY: 78.
asked the Chief Secretary whether subsequent to an attack at Gort on 15th May, 12 houses in the neighbourhood were burned down or partially destroyed; whether it was an official reprisal; if not, what steps have been taken against the forces of the Crown guilty of the destruction; and whether the town of Gort is in the martial-law area?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I presume the hon. Member, when he uses the words, "an attack at Gort" refers to the carefully planned and cold-blooded murder of District Inspector and Mrs. Blake and Captain Cornwallis and Lieutenant McCreery of the 19th Lancers. The police report that on 16th May four shops in Gort were maliciously wrecked and in some cases goods were taken. Inquiry
is being made in the matters, but I have at present no evidence as to the identity of the persons responsible for this destruction.

AUXILIARY CADETS.

Captain FOXCROFT: 68.
asked the Chief Secretary what is the number of Auxiliary Cadets in Ireland; how many have been convicted by courts-martial; how many by civil courts; how many are awaiting or undergoing trial; and how many of the latter are included in the Trim case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The strength of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, is at present 1,498. There have been eight convictions by court-martial and none by civil courts. Fourteen are at present awaiting or undergoing trial, of which number, 12 are included in the Trim case.

Captain FOXCROFT: Are all the auxiliaries ex-officers of His Majesty's forces?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: All ex-officers, with good records in the War.

Major M. WOOD: How many, have been dismissed without trial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must put down a question.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any official inquiry has been held into the alleged theft of goods from the shops of Mr. Robert Campbell and Mrs. Clarke, of Roscommon, on the 15th of October last; is he aware that compensation, amounting in all to £1,083, was awarded by Judge Wakeley at Roscommon County Sessions, at which it was stated that the looting was done by members of the Crown forces; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with these cases?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and the hon. Member for Houghton-Le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), on the 10th and 25th of May respectively.

DISTURBANCES, TRALEE.

Mr. C. WHITE: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that shoot-
ing by the police took place at the town of Tralee on the 8th August, 1920, and again on the 14th August; that on the 31st November the county hall and a number of houses were destroyed by the police; that on the 23rd March, 1921, shots were fired from a machine gun at St. John's parish church; and that on the 16th April a creamery and several houses in the neighbourhood were burnt down, on the 19th April the offices of the newspapers, the "Kerryman" and the "Liberator,"were destroyed, and on the 21st April more houses destroyed and a person named Bell killed; and whether any members of the Crown force have yet been arrested or punished for any of these outrages?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for reports on these incidents, which are alleged to have occurred in the martial law area, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will one day next week repeat his question, of which I only received notice on Tuesday. I may point out, however, that the allegation that fire was directed from a machine gun at the parish church has already been completely disproved; the facts of the case being as stated by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on the 7th April in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould).

BALLINAMORE, LEITRIM.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary what is the result of the inquiry into the shooting at Ballinamore, County Leitrim, by police on the 24th September last; and whether any arrests have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that no shooting whatever, either by the police or anyone else, took place in Ballinamore on the date in question.

DISTURBANCES, BANTRY.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 19.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the town of Bantry, County Cork, was partially wrecked by the police on the 15th May, 1920, again on the 23rd June, and again on the 25th June; whether many houses were burned and looted on these occasions; and whether any inquiries have been held and any punishments inflicted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have had inquiries made into these matters, and am informed that there is no evidence that any members of the police force were concerned in any of the acts of destruction mentioned.

CREAMERIES (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. GALBRAITH: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry has been made into the destruction of the creamery at Ballymote on the 3rd November last: and whether any arrests have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams) on 21st February last by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, when he stated that the civil population are not inclined to assist the police in their investigation. It has therefore proved impossible to obtain reliable information regarding the perpetrators of the outrages.

GENERAL CROZIER.

Mr. BRIANT: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement of General Crozier that last September a party of Auxiliaries disguised as members of the Irish Republican Army held up a post office in Kilkenny and stole considerable sums of money; whether any inquiry has previously been held into this case; and whether any punishments have been inflicted?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is one of a series of allegations made by General Crozier in the Press. The matter was never brought to my notice by General Crozier during the period of his command of the Auxiliaries or by anyone else. I am having it investigated.

Mr. BRIANT: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the statement of General Crozier that he has information as to the murder of Father Griffin in County Galway by members of the Auxiliary division, and that a highly placed official at Dublin Castle was involved in the suppression of evidence bearing upon this case; and whether, in view of the extreme gravity of these charges, the matter will be placed before an impartial tribunal?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been drawn to statements which have
appeared in the Press to the effect that General Crozier is in possession of evidence relating to a number of charges that have been brought against servants of the Crown in Ireland. If General Crozier, or any other person who can bring forward genuine and well authenticated evidence to justify the re-opening of cases which have already been the subject of full and impartial inquiry, will communicate that evidence to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or to myself, I can promise that it will be carefully considered by the Government.

Major BARNES: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the statement of General Crozier that the evidence as regards the shooting of three men named Clune, Clancy, and McKee, in Dublin Castle guardroom was manipulated by officials; and whether he will now arrange for a full and impartial investigation into the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have seen in the Press the statement attributed to General Crozier to which reference is made in the question. If there is the slightest foundation for the statement, General Crozier must be in a position to afford additional information which would assist materially in any further investigation of the matter. I have already stated in this House that I invite and will await such further information. Meantime, I stand upon the finding of the Court of Inquiry composed of British Regular officers which investigated the death on the 22nd of November last of these men, and who satisfied themselves after hearing all available evidence that they were shot by members of the Crown forces after an act in the execution of their duty in an attempt to overpower their guards and make good their escape.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Crozier brought these facts to his notice while still in office, and whether there would have been any difficulty in giving the right hon. Gentleman all these facts, if he believed them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Neither these nor any of the other allegations were ever brought to my attention by General Crozier, although he could see me at any
time, and I did, as a fact, see him on parade at an inspection of an artillery company a few weeks before his resignation.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that many of the cases in this, dossier appear to have been produced by officers who, like General Crozier, have left the Auxiliary Force because they were unsuitable?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was General Crozier entitled to apply direct to the right hon. Gentleman in this case, or had he to send his evidence to a superior?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Chief Secretary is always approachable by a senior officer of police or military, if necessary, in Ireland.

Major BARNES: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a report through General Crozier from an officer who was present at the shooting at Croke Park, who declared that the firing by the Black and Tans was done without any provocation; whether this report was considered by the court of inquiry; and whether the officer in question was asked to give evidence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not received the report referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and am therefore not in a position to reply to the remainder of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether Brigadier-General Crozier was requested to give evidence at the trial of the cadets charged with looting at Trim; whether Brigadier-General Crozier is unable at present to attend owing to illness; and whether it is intended to conclude the trial without his evidence, or to postpone it as in similar cases in other trials, or to obtain a sworn statement from the General as in the case of District Inspector King and the Mallow shooting?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has continually criticised the Government for postponing this trial, and how can the right hon. Gentleman explain this change of front?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Brigadier-General Crozier was requested to attend
the trial. He sent a doctor's certificate to the effect that he was unable to make the journey to Ireland owing to the state of his health. The prosecution has not applied for an adjournment for reasons given, namely, that in Brigadier-General Crozier's summary of evidence taken in Dublin no evidence was disclosed that would assist the prosecution, but, if the defence or the Court desire to have any evidence from Brigadier-General Crozier, it is open to the Court to adjourn the trial.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Seeing that Brigadier-General Crozier was one of the principal witnesses of the whole affair in the first place, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the inquiry can be complete without his evidence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I took all that into consideration. I insisted on Brigadier-General Crozier giving a summary of evidence and on his being requested to attend the trial because I foresaw exactly this kind of question being asked. Brigadier-General Crozier gave a summary to the legal advisers of the Commander-in-Chief, which disclosed no evidence against any cadet. We had the greatest difficulty in finding the General's address and only discovered it through the "Daily News."I regret that this officer has not attended the trial to help in the prosecution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he had a doctor's certificate, and why does he make that imputation against this officer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We had two certificates from a doctor. The first certificate disclosed no specific cause of illness. We asked for a second certificate, which went on to say that Brigadier-General Crozier was suffering, I think, from nerves or neurasthenia—

Mr. MOSLEY: He did not in the War.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: —and was suffering, also, from an unfortunate accident which he received to his head while in command of the Auxiliary Division in a motor accident.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He was on active service, and was ambushed.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: (indicating dissent): On these grounds, the doctor
said that he could not allow him to go to Ireland. I regret that he was unable to attend the trial.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask if this officer, as to whom the right hon. Gentleman has made such damaging statements, such damaging insinuations, as he could, is not one of those gallant officers the very imputation of anything offensive or wrongdoing on their part was denounced by him as evidently false because of the gallant services of such officers?

TROOPS (STRENGTH).

Captain W. BENN: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether any requests have been received from the military authorities in Ireland for the despatch of more troops; and whether any action has been decided upon?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on Monday last to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck).

Captain W. BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Chief Secretary stated last night that the Customs House was burnt down owing to an insufficiency of troops at his disposal?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must intervene. I made no such statement.

BURNINGS.

Mr. LUNN: 69.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the co-operative stores and the dispensary at Tourmakeady were destroyed on or about 10th May as a reprisal for an ambush in the neighbourhood; whether this was officially ordered; and what is the object of the destruction of institutions of this character?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This place is in the martial law area. I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the dispensary is undamaged. The co-operative stores were burned, but whether accidentally or maliciously has not been ascertained. The destruction was not done by forces of the Crown.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Chief Secretary now give us the date of the death, of Baron Munchausen?

Mr. LUNN: 71.
asked the Chief Secretary whether a number of houses in the Spiddal and Moycullen districts were burnt on the night of 14th May by members of the Crown forces, who employed petrol and bombs; whether this destruction was officially ordered; and, if not, whether any disciplinary action has been taken?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received a police report regarding the burning of some houses in Spiddal and Moycullen, which states that there is no foundation for the allegation that members of the Crown forces are implicated.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Hear, hear. More Munchausen!

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: 74.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry has been held into the burning of the farm and farmhouse belonging to a man named Desmond, at Annabeg, on the 23rd October last by soldiers during their investigations following an attack on the Essex Regiment; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have asked for a report in this case, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat his question at a later date.

DISTURBANCES, ATHLONE.

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: 72.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry has been held into the wrecking of houses at Athlone in September last; and, if so, what was the finding of the inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have had inquiries made into this matter, and am informed that nothing of the nature of wrecking of houses took place in Athlone in September last. The windows of a few houses were broken on the 25th of that month by some persons whose identity has not yet been discovered, and this may be the incident to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. WINTRINGHAM: 73.
asked the Chief Secretary whether any inquiry has been held into the street firing and other disturbances in Athlone in October last; and, if so, what the finding was?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will repeat his question one day next week, I shall endeavour to give him an answer.

CROWN FORCES (CASUALTIES).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 76.
asked the Chief Secretary how many officers and men of the military and police forces in Ireland have been kidnapped and imprisoned or murdered by the rebels?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend will appreciate that in cases where officers have been kidnapped, it is often not possible definitely to establish whether or not they have been murdered by the rebels. I am, however, preparing a statement which, if my hon. Friend will repeat his question next week, I shall be happy to give him.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES, WEST BELFAST.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: 77
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that some special constables went into some of the streets in West Belfast at 1 o'clock on Thursday night last, woke up the residents, who were all Nationalists, threatened and terrified them, and at the point of the revolver made them take down flags which they had put up on the occasion of the elections; and if he will say what steps the Government intend to take to punish this lack of discipline on the part of the special constables?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am having inquiry made in this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will on Thursday of next week repeat his question, of which I only received notice yesterday.

ROAD REPAIRS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 79.
asked the Chief Secretary whether forced labour recruited from the civilian population is now employed by the forces of the Crown in Ireland upon road repairs and similar labours; and whether the persons compelled to work upon these tasks are confined to the male sex?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a question by the hon. Member for the Falls Divison on 21st February. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

POLICE OPERATIONS, SCARIFF.

Mr. MOSLEY: 80.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that
Father Clancy has repeated the allegation that he was prevented from celebrating mass in the village of Scariff, county Clare, on Sunday, the 24th April last, and compelled to accompany his parishioners, who were performing forced labour on road repair under the ægis of the forces of the Crown; and whether, in view of the detailed repudiation which Father Clancy has supplied to the Press of the account of this incident contained in his reply on the 13th May last, he will order a public and impartial inquiry into the whole affair?

Mr. HOPKINSON: On a point of Order. What does the word "ægis" mean?

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is not a point of Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better consult a dictionary.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The facts of the case were given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his reply to the hon. Member on 13th May, and I do not propose to re-open the matter.

Mr. MOSLEY: In view of the fact that the person, who is alleged to have made these libellous accusations against the right hon. Gentleman, has furnished a direct repudiation to his answer, will the right hon. Gentleman allow a public inquiry so that the evidence on both sides shall be heard?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is just the question on the Paper, and that is what, as I said yesterday, takes up so much of the time of the House.

MURDER (COLONEL PEACOCKE).

Lieut.- Colonel ROYDS: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give any information as to the murder of Colonel Warren John Richard Peacocke by Sinn Fein gunmen in his garage at his home in County Cork?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that Colonel Peacocke, aged 32, an ex-officer of the Grenadier Guards and the Inniskilling Fusiliers, was murdered while in his garage at Innishannon, County Cork, by two armed and masked men on the evening of the 31st May. He was severely wounded by revolver bullets in
his stomach, and died after great agony on the morning of 1st June. Colonel Peacocke joined the Inniskilling Fusiliers at the outbreak of War as a second-lieutenant, and ultimately Was promoted to the command of his regiment. He served throughout the War with great distinction, and was awarded the D.S.O. and Bar and the Croix de Guerre, first class. Retiring from the Army at the end of the War, he lived alone with his widowed mother in Innishannon, County Cork. I want to express my own regret at the murder of this gallant officer, who was much respected in the county in which he and his family have long been resident.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assign or suggest any motive for this dastardly crime?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only motive that I know is that this gallant officer was a loyalist and an ex-officer of His Majesty's Army.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: He served in the Ulster Division; that is why.

Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the character of some of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen in this House may give him—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not for Question Time.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this officer was known to have ever given any information to the Government as to any action of the Sinn Fein party?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: None; I can speak for that. He had no connection whatever with the Government or any public office, or with any political movement in the county in which he lived.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether any means can be afforded for the protection of officers who have fought and bled for their country and are now living peaceably in Ireland? Are there any means which we would not use in a civilised country, but which in Ireland might be used at the present moment to protect officers who are living in their homes after having fought for their country? Would it not be possible to use means which we should be ashamed to use in any but an uncivilised country?

Mr. PRETYMAN: If the law is not able to protect private citizens, has it not become legal for them to take measures to protect themselves?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is going much beyond the question of which I have had notice.

COURT-MARTIAL (J. R. MOYLAN).

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he has given orders that the Writ of Habeas Corpus issued by the Dublin Courts in the case of John R. Moylan shall be obeyed by the Cork Military Court?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that the Court before which Moylan is being tried has not yet pronounced sentence. If it is ultimately decided that there is power to issue this Writ, it will, of course, be obeyed.

Captain BENN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say, the Writ having been issued by a competent court, whether it will be obeyed or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As a matter of fact the Writ has not been issued. I may inform the hon. and gallant Member that a conditional order for the Writ has been issued, but not the Writ.

Captain BENN: If the conditional order is made good and the Writ is issued, will the military court obey it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hypothetical.

NEWSPAPERS (MARTIAL LAW AREA).

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a Military Order has been served on the proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal" and "Evening Telegraph," two Dublin daily journals, prohibiting the circulation of these papers in martial law areas; whether he can state the grounds for this Order; and whether he will take steps to have the Order rescinded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the Military Governor of the martial law area has prohibited the sale and distribution of the "Freeman's Journal" and the "Evening Telegraph" within the military law area between the 2nd and 9th June, both dates inclusive. In the Proclamation of the Military Governor it was
distinctly stated that this action has been taken owing to false statements concerning the military having been published in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 30th May. These false statements can have no other purpose than to encourage the rebels and to throw odium on the forces of the Crown. The action of the Military Governor had the approval of the Commander-in-Chief before it was taken.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself read the article, which I understand is held by the military authorities as the basis for this action—an article headed "Regular War Features" in the issue of 30th May; are the only statements in this article that the military have compelled the farmers in certain districts to fell the trees on their land and have occasionally commandeered their carts; and can any such statements in any way embarrass the military authorities in the discharge of their duties?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not read the specific statement, but I have consulted with the Commander-in-Chief regarding the general rules governing the public Press in the martial law area, and he has my support in the action taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Lieut. - Colonel NALL: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the particulars of the Société Generale des Huiles de Pétrole published in the English Press and the arrangements stated to be entered into by that company with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, securing the supply from the latter of large quantities of oil for a period of 20 years; whether the representatives of His Majesty's Government on the board of the Anglo-Persian Company have approved of these arrangements; and whether, having regard to the shares held by the Government in that company, he will lay before the House full particulars of the arrangements in question?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This question appears to relate to an ordinary commercial transaction of the company. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think that he
would be justified in asking the company for particulars of the arrangements for the purposes of publication.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: May I ask whether contracts of this description will prejudice the supply of oil to this country?

Mr. YOUNG: That is a question of commercial policy, for the consideration, in the first place, of the country, and not of the directors.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are not the majority of the shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company held by the British Government, and, therefore, are not the British Government entitled to have some say in contracts entered into which may prejudice British interests?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, surely, but it is only through the official directors on the board of the company.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to call on the official directors on the Board of the company for a report on this arrangement?

Mr. YOUNG: Of course, the official directors are responsible to the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN ROTARY CLUBS.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that over 1,000 delegates from the Rotary Clubs of America are visiting this country this month; and whether, in view of the importance of this delegation, any arrangements have been made to give a fitting reception as an expression of goodwill between the two countries?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have been asked to take this question. The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

DRAFT MANDATES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations has now been decided
On; and whether they will be asked to give their final approval to the draft mandates presented to them by the principal Allied and associated Powers at these meetings?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The agenda includes the question of the "A "and "B "mandates.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 41.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to ratify the convention for the establishment of an international court of justice; and what is the reason why the ratification has been so long delayed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave to him on 5th May. Since then we have heard that Mr. Hughes will sign for Australia on his arrival in Europe, and that as regards ratification the necessary legislation is now before the Canadian Parliament. We shall then only have to await the final reply of Australia in regard to ratification.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it possible for this country to ratify before that happens? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the time is very short, and this is of very great importance.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it would not be impossible, but I think we shall be in good time.

Sir J. D. REES: If there is not a case for adjudication by this Court, what is the hurry for its ratification?

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Sir. J. D. REES: 48.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in the Mandates for Samoa, Nauru, German South-West Africa, and German possessions in the Pacific, Article 4 is to be literally construed so as to make the defence of the mandated territories against external attack impossible; and whether, under Article 5, allowing missionaries who are nationals of any State which is a member of the League of Nations to reside and prosecute their calling in mandated territories, American missionaries are excluded?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think that the literal construction of Article 4 in the Mandates referred to will have the effect contemplated by my hon. Friend. The answer to the second branch of the question is in the negative.

Sir J. D. REES: What is the meaning of saying that nations which are members of the League may send their missionaries if equally those who are not members of the League may send theirs?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand there is a discretion on the part of the mandatory Powers to allow these privileges if they think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Sir F. BANBURY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement in February last that the Turkish delegates would be here in a week and that he would ratify the Treaty right away, he will take steps at once to declare the termination of the War, as the delay in declaring peace is affecting adversely the commercial and financial interests of the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has not repeated my statement correctly. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will, see that I stated that if we arrived, as we hoped we should, at an agreement, I should ask the House to ratify the Treaty right away. I regret that subsequent developments have rendered this course impossible. In these circumstances, I do not think it is possible to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend immediately, but it is clear that if agreement is much longer postponed there must be an official declaration on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say I am much obliged for the answer; but I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that very important financial and commercial interests have been held up for years, and are dependent on the declaration of peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the question.

UPPER SILESIA.

Mr. G. THORNE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister the date of meeting of the
Supreme Council to decide the future of Upper Silesia?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to name a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTS AND TRADE UNIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apprehension felt by a large section of the community at the rapid growth of British and international trusts and combines, and to its declared dislike of the privileged position occupied by trades unions, he will immediately appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and report in the next Session on the best means of controlling trusts, and what amendments of the various Acts governing trades unions should be made to place trades unions upon an equality before the Law with the rest of the community?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Committee on Trusts was appointed in 1918, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of their Report, which was issued the following year. The Government hope to introduce legislation dealing with trade monopolies when Parliamentary time permits, and meanwhile there would be no advantage, I think, in appointing another Commission. As regards the question of trade unions, I would refer to the answer which I gave on the 18th April to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall).

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

PAMPHLET ("FIFTEEN POINTS ABOUT COAL").

Major M. WOOD: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the greater part of his speech at Maidstone has been issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office as a pamphlet, entitled "Fifteen Points about Coal—Facts you ought to know"; whether this has been issued at the public expense, and, if so, by whose authority and what is the cost; whether he can state the number of copies issued to Coalition Liberal Associations for distribution; and whether it is the policy of the Government to endorse Coalition propaganda out of public funds?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It is not the fact that the greater part of the Prime Minister's speech was issued in the pamphlet "Fifteen Points about Coal." This pamphlet was issued on the authority of the Government to explain the position of the coal industry, and the Prime Minister's speech was quoted, in common with other authorities, in order that the economic issue and the points in dispute might be simply explained. It is not possible at this moment to state the exact cost of producing and issuing the pamphlet, but it is approximately about £1,000. It is the policy of the Government to place the public in possession of all the facts relating to a dispute which has brought loss to every section of the community, and for this purpose political associations have been used as machinery of distribution. This, however, does not make it Coalition propaganda, as is suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are absolutely all lies, from top to bottom?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is a fair presentation of the case.

Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that this pamphlet was distributed, with other party pamphlets, by Coalition organisations.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not aware that it was, but this pamphlet, which is a pure and simple statement of facts, was available for distribution by any organisation willing to bring the facts before the public.

Major WATTS MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Regulations passed by this House in May will also be circulated, showing that the Government are unable to take over the mines?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that all party propaganda is simply a statement of facts, but the facts are selected?

LIVING WAGE.

Colonel NEWMAN: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement that the miners' demand is only for a living wage and the machinery by which a living wage shall
be assured; and what is the weekly sum at the present time which would represent a living wage for a family of five persons, of whom one only is earning, and who are content to make some uses of imported meat, margarine, and the consumption of more vegetables?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. The weekly sum that would represent a living wage for such a family would vary considerably with the circumstances of the individual families, and with the view taken of essential and non-essential expenditure. Having regard to the wide differences of opinion which are known to exist, I should not feel justified in making an official pronouncement on this subject.

PEASE AND PARTNERS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Messrs. Pease and Partners, coalowners, show in the annual report a profit of £528,579, and the undivided profit of last year was £125,175, making a grand total of £653,754; if he is aware that the authorised capital of the company is £3,000,000, of which £2,186,399 has been paid up; and how many collieries the firm in question controls?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. S. Baldwin): I have been asked to reply. The figures which the hon. Member quotes appear in the company's published report for the year ended 80th April, 1921. The profits are in part only derived from coal mining, the company's undertaking, including coking, by-product, chemical, briquetting, iron and salt work, in which a large proportion of its capital is invested. The company works 16 coal mines and controls four other undertakings comprising coal mines.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether this company is one of those which is depriving the miners of a living wage?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether any offers of assistance have been made by the British or any of the Allied Governments to the Greek Government by way of furnishing munitions and technical advisers to the
Greek forces in North-Western Anatolia for the protection of Constantinople against a possible advance by Angora Turks on the capital; whether there is a British military attaché with the Greek army in Asia Minor; whether Colonel Repington is now with the latter; and if he has any official mission?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, is in the negative. The British military attaché at Athens has been invited to visit the Greek front, and may by now have proceeded there. I have no information in regard to Colonel Repington's movements. He has no official mission.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has yet come to a decision as to appointing a Royal Commission or Select Committee to inquire into the question of London and Greater London municipal government; and whether, in view of the many pressing questions, such as transit, housing, education, and rating, which affect the ratepayers of these large and densely populated districts, the Government will state when they will set up an inquiry into this urgent question?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the appointment of a Royal Commission is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN PAPER MONEY.

Sir H. FOREMAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to introduce or to give any support to the suggested legislation for the recognition of Russian moneys, particularly since a number of British subjects had invested their savings in Russian currency and values, and are now absolutely destitute in view of the worthlessness of Russian roubles, of which they often hold large quantities?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what suggested legislation my hon. Friend refers. There is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to introduce or support legislation giving an artificial value to Russian paper money.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the civil servants in receipt of £500 a year and upwards have in the course of the last 12 months received by way of increases of their permanent salaries, in addition to the increases received for war bonus, a sum of £219,857, and that of this sum £42,300 has been received by civil servants in receipt of £2,000 a year and upwards; and whether, in framing the Estimates for 1922–23, with a view to a drastic reduction of expenditure in accordance with the Treasury circular of 13th May, 1921, it will be possible to revise the increases above referred to and in proper cases to reduce them?

Mr. YOUNG: The rates of salary at present authorised for the posts referred to are kept constantly under review and are liable to be reduced in any case in which the existing rate is considered to be more than adequate. With reference to my hon. and learned Friend's figures which are quoted, I believe, from my answer to his question of 28th April, I ought, perhaps, to explain that the increases payable by way of revision of salary and not as a result of promotion in vacancies do not amount to more than approximately one-third of the sum mentioned in my hon. and learned Friend's question.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I right in understanding that these salaries can be reduced?

Mr. YOUNG: All salaries are subject to review, and can be reduced.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman reduce them?

Mr. YOUNG: I should like to have notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not rather invidious to select certain people's salaries for reduction? Ought it not to be done as a general measure by a Treasury proceeding?

Sir J. BUTCHER: When will an opportunity arise for reconsidering and reducing these salaries?

Mr. YOUNG: There will be no special opportunity, and no fixed time, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult
the answer I have just given to his question he will see that I say
the rates of salary … are kept constantly under review, and are liable to be reduced …

Mr. STANTON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider at the same time reducing the salaries of Members of Parliament, and thereby fulfilling the desire of a large number of Members of this House to get rid of those who are impoverished?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Captain TERRELL: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will consider the desirability of instructing each Government Department to make to the Treasury a return every three months showing what economies have, in accordance with the Minute contained in Command Paper 1309, been effected; whether such Report will, with the necessary official comments, be circulated to all Members of the House; and whether time will be afforded for the discussion of each such Report?

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member will see that Command Paper 1309 asks for Provisional Estimates from Departments by the end of July. When those Estimates have been received and examined my right hon. Friend will consider whether he can usefully make any statement with regard to them to the House. He does not think that the particular suggestion in the question would be practicable or indeed desirable.

Captain TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Parliament will not be sitting at the time he has stated?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET ESTIMATES.

Captain TERRELL: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the acute depression in trade, he will consider, as on a previous occasion, the desirability of presenting to the House of Commons before the Summer Recess a revised Estimate of his Budget figures?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend sees no reason at present to modify the Budget Estimates of revenue, and he is not yet in a position to add, as regards
expenditure, to what was said in the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. BRIGGS: 84.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, as an alternative to the definite date of 31st August, 1921, laid down in paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of Part I of the First Schedule of the Finance Bill, allow a period, such as 1st June to 31st August, during which a stocktaking date could be chosen which would coincide with a firm's customary stocktaking date: and is he aware that such opportunity would save considerable expenditure of effort and money for the trader whose customary stocktaking date is other than 31st August?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, which would represent a serious departure from the principle upon which the proposals contained in the first part of the First Schedule of the Finance Bill are based.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the grievances of old age pensioners arising from the bringing into account in calculating their means of gifts from friends and pensions in respect of sons killed in the War; and will he take steps to remove those grievances?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me on Tuesday to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the answer he gave last Tuesday referred to universal old age pensions?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have another question later on this very same matter.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 108.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an old lady of 85 years of age, who was living in a home for aged people in Devon has had her old age pension taken from her on the ground that her friends contributed 17s. 6d. a week towards her maintenance and that the value of her accommodation
at the home had also to be included in estimating her means, in consequence of which she was debarred from receiving the 10s. weekly old age pension, and that her friends being unable to increase their contribution to cover that amount and the home, which is a charitable institution, not having sufficient funds to meet the loss, she has at the age of 84 been compelled to enter the workhouse; and whether the Government can take steps, by legislation or by other means, to remove the hardship of this and other similar cases?

Mr. YOUNG: I understand that the case to which the hon. Member refers is that of Mrs. Harriet Dyer. The old age pension was revoked on the ground that her means exceeded the statutory limit, the decision of the Local Pension Committee being confirmed on appeal by the Ministry of Health. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on this subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Debate on the 11th May last.

Sir R. NEWMAN: Will not the Government consider these cases from the point of view of economy as well as humanity?

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is a voluntary allowance be friends regarded as means in the sense that it deprives a person of his or her old age pension?

Mr. C. WHITE: Is it the intention of the Government to undertake any legislation on this subject? Will the free vote of the House as last night be allowed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES, WEST INDIES.

Mr. HURD: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans are in progress to develop air services in and to and from our Colonies in the British West Indies, with Bermuda and Nassau as bases, with a view to overcoming the difficulties of communication between the islands and between them and North and South America?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): Various schemes for the development of air communication in the West Indies have, from time to time,
been closely examined by the Air Ministry. The main difficulty is that of finance. Since the summer of 1920 the Bermuda and West Atlantic Aviation Company have been carrying out valuable pioneer work in the Bermudas, and it is understood that proposals are now being considered for a service between the Bahamas and the mainland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BRENNAN HELICOPTER.

Mr. RAPER: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the exact sum allocated for experiments with the Brennan helicopter; and whether any other helicopter experiments, besides those of Mr. Brennan, are being financed by the Air Ministry?

Captain GUEST: With regard to the first part of the question, no exact sum has been allocated for these experiments. Whatever work is required is carried out at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. The hon. and gallant Member need have no fear that the progress of these experiments will be hampered by lack of funds. With regard to the second part of the question, no other practical proposal has, so far, been received by the Air Ministry.

PILOTS (TRAINING).

Mr. RAPER: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the fact that, although the scheme instituted by the French authorities to encourage approved pilots to maintain their practical association with flying by means of giving free loan of machines for flights, free fuel, and even free insurance of the aviator while in the air, has only been in force for a very little time, already considerably over one thousand practice flights have been made at the three aerodromes, which have been opened for the purpose at Orley, Angers, and Clermont-Ferrand; and will he consider the granting of similar facilities to approved pilots in this country?

Captain GUEST: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his interesting information about the French Air Force. I may add that the French treat their Reserve pilots, while undergoing a course, in exactly the same way as serving personnel, and that the period is actually reckoned as service. There is,
at present, no authority to form an Air Force Reserve of pilots, but the Regulations to establish one will, it is hoped, be approved and issued shortly. Provision will be made for periodical flying practice for those Reserve officers who would be employed on flying duties in the event of mobilisation. It is not considered that provision, from public funds, of free facilities for flying, in the case of officers who have no Reserve liability, would be justified.

BRITISH AIR LINES AGREEMENT.

Mr. RAPER: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will publish, as a White Paper, the Agreement entered into between the Air Ministry and the different British air lines?

Captain GUEST: I gave a general outline of the Agreement to the Committee on the Air Estimates on the 21st April. Although the Cross-Channel Aeroplane Service is in operation, some minor points in relation to the legal Agreement are even now not finally settled, but, as soon as the document is signed, copies of it will be laid before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGORA GOVERNMENT (BRITISH PRISONERS).

Sir W. SEAGER: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there are still 32 British prisoners-of-war in the hands of the Angora Government; and what he proposes to do to bring about their immediate release?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: When in March last His Majesty's Government concluded a formal agreement with Bekir Sami Bey for a mutual exchange of prisoners, they confidently assumed that the Angora Government appreciated the moral obligation, admitted and observed by all civilised States, to honour the signature of its representative. In pursuance of the agreement 40 out of the 64 Turkish internees at Malta were released. I am sorry to say that the British prisoners are still detained, and His Majesty's Government are reluctantly compelled to admit that their confidence in the good faith of the Angora Government has so far been misplaced. They find it difficult,
however, to believe that the Angora Government will refuse to redeem the pledges given by their representative. Needless to say, His Majesty's Government will continue to make every effort to secure the release of the British prisoners, pending which the remaining 24 Turks named in the agreement will be detained at Malta.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSULS (CANADA).

Mr. HURD: 91.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether an arrangement has been made with the Canadian Government whereby the services of British Consuls in all foreign countries will be available for the promotion of trade between Canada and those countries in co-operation with the Canadian Government; whether, in these circumstances, the Canadian Government has decided not to appoint separate Canadian agents in those countries; and what are the terms of the arrangement?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: British Consular officers are entrusted with the task of promoting the trade of the British Empire generally. In 1912 an arrangement, which is still in force, was come to between the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce and Viscount Grey, at that time Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the establishment of more intimate relations between the British Consular Service and the Dominion of Canada, so as to assist the trade and commerce of the Dominion with foreign countries. I have seen a Press report of a decision on the part of the Canadian Government in the sense indicated in the latter part of the question, but I have not yet received any official communication on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. GILBERT: 98.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the districts of the L and M Divisions of the Metropolitan Police have recently been varied and extended in South London; will he state what is the reason for such variations; what are the present boundaries of each of these police districts; whether any extra policemen have been posted to each division as a result of the change or any new stations
provided; and what is the number of present police stations affected by the change?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): For administrative purposes, and in order to secure improved control and supervision, the boundaries of several of the Metropolitan Police divisions south of the River Thames have recently been varied. L and M divisions were two of the divisions affected. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Police Order defining the present boundaries of these divisions. No extra police have been posted to the districts affected and no new stations are provided or contemplated, but there has been a redistribution of the officers and men, and the extension of L and M divisions has brought into them five police stations formerly in other divisions, namely, Deptford, Lavender Hill, Battersea, Clapham, and Battersea Park Road.

Mr. GILBERT: 99.
asked the Home Secretary whether all or any of the Royal parks in the Metropolitan Police area are policed by the Metropolitan Police; and will he give the names of the parks which are not policed and state why all the parks are not treated on the same basis from a police protection point of view?

Mr. SHORTT: Hyde Park is the only park policed by the Metropolitan Police. This is necessary on account of the large amount of traffic and the number and size of the public meetings held there. In the other Royal parks, namely, St. James's and the Green Parks, Kensington Gardens, Hampton Court Green, Bushey Park, Hampton Court Gardens, Regent's Park, Greenwich Park, Richmond Park, Hampton Court Park, Victoria Tower Gardens, Tower Gardens, the Office of Works find it quite satisfactory and much more economical to employ their own park-keepers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (INQUIRY).

Captain LOSEBY: 100.
asked the Home Secretary if he has yet received the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations made in this House against a responsible official of the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir, and I am taking steps to have the report presented to Parliament at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES, EGYPT.

Sir W. SEAGER: 102.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is possible to declare the origin, nature, and extent of the recent outbreak in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The recent disturbances were confined to Cairo and Alexandria. They began in the former city on 18th May, and continued on the two following days. Order was restored on the evening of 20th May, and has been maintained since. British troops were not called out in Cairo, where the total casualties amount to: Killed, 5 natives; wounded, 133, including 100 native police, 14 native soldiers, and 2 British police officers. Disturbances began in Alexandria on 20th May, when two police stations were burnt, and the police were compelled to fire on the mob, inflicting casualties. Order was not restored until the night of 22nd May, when collisions occurred in the Hamamil quarter between Egyptians and Europeans. On the following morning the Egyptian police were no longer able to control the situation, and handed over to the British military authorities, by whom order was restored. There have been no further outbreaks. Total casualties in Alexandria were: Killed, 68 natives, 1 British soldier, 1 Maltese, 1 French, 3 Italians, 13 Greeks; wounded, 162 natives, including 30 police and 5 Jews, 2 Maltese, 64 other Europeans, of whom 46 are Greeks, and 10 whose nationality has not been ascertained. With regard to the origin and nature of these outbreaks, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stafford on the 26th ultimo.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (EXPORT DUTY).

Earl WINTERTON: 103.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Nyasaland Chamber of Agriculture and Commerce have strongly urged upon the Nyasaland Government that there should be a refund of the export duty imposed upon tobacco and other articles in April, 1920, in view
of the fact that the duty was subsequently abolished, owing to the heavy tax it placed upon industry in the country; and whether he is aware that the condition of planting in Nyasaland is a most serious one at the present time?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): As was explained in the answer to the Noble Lord's question on the 11th May, the produce taxes in Nyasaland were levied for revenue purposes until other forms of taxation could be devised. I am aware that agricultural interests in Nyasaland, as in other Dependencies, are seriously affected by the world-wide depression of trade, but the money necessary for the administration of the Government has to be obtained, and I can hold out no hope that it will be possible to refund the amounts paid in duty before the abolition of the taxes on the 1st of April, 1921.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member call for a report from the Government of Nyasaland to show the state of the industry before the tax was imposed, and its state at the time it was taken off, with a view to seeing whether it is not a fact that it has been an absolute death-blow to the tobacco industry in Nyasaland?

Mr. WOOD: I think my Noble Friend is quite right in saying that this tax has operated hardly, but the fact remains that the money had to be got, and there was no other available source from which to draw.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there an Income Tax in Nyasaland?

Mr. WOOD: That has been considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be well to suggest that they should have an Income Tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CABINET (IRELAND).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: 104.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the prejudicial influence on the internal conditions of the British Dominions of the situation in Ireland, and in view of the desires of these Dominions for the bestowal of self-government on Ireland expressed in votes of their legislatures on many occasions, and in view of the suggestion in the speech
of General Smuts that the Government might give the Dominions an opportunity of discussing the question, the Government are prepared to put the question of Irish self-government on the agenda of the coming conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire?

Mr. WOOD: The agenda for the forth coming conference lies solely within the discretion of the conference itself, and, while the question of Ireland is, of course, technically a matter domestic to the United Kingdom, His Majesty's Government would certainly raise no objection, if the conference expressed the desire that it should be included.

Mr. HURD: Is not this the very last thing which the Dominion Premiers themselves would wish?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: No, no. May I—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to argue the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWISH IMMIGRATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 105.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Jewish immigration into Palestine has been stopped; and, if so, why?

Mr. WOOD: I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply yesterday to the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Glasgow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question was not asked yesterday. May I ask whether the Colonial Secretary cannot give us a day on which we can put questions to him?

Mr. WOOD: My right hon. Friend always does his best to be in his place when questions are to be addressed to him, and it is only unforeseen circumstances which have kept him away to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he playing polo?

DISTURBANCES, JAFFA.

Mr. CAIRNS: 107.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the form of the inquiry into the outbreak which occurred in Jaffa in connection with the May
Day demonstration there; and whether investigations have been commenced?

Mr. WOOD: The Commission of Inquiry consists of the Chief Justice of Palestine and two other British officials of the Palestine Government, and is assisted in its labours by three prominent Palestinian notables, one Christian, one Jew, and one Moslem. It has already commenced its investigations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (CURRENCY).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 106.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new shilling currency in East Africa will be sub-divided into pence, cents, or annas; if into cents, how many cents will be equivalent to a shilling; whether silver shillings will be legal tender to any amount; and whether the East African shilling will be identic with the English shilling in weight, size, and fineness?

Mr. WOOD: The new shilling currency in East Africa will be divided into cents, a cent being the hundredth part of a shilling. The new shilling will be the standard coin, and legal tender for any amount. The size will be slightly larger than that of the English shilling, but materially less than that of the India rupee. The question of the weight and fineness of the coin is under consideration. I propose to publish a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing the proposals in greater detail.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are the new foreign coins actually circulating already in East Africa?

Mr. WOOD: I would rather have notice of that question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has this new shilling coin, which, for some reason unexplained, is much larger than ours, been issued in order to deceive the unsuspecting native into thinking he is getting the old rupee?

Mr. WOOD: If my hon. and gallant Friend had studied my answer, he would have noticed I not only said it was larger than the English shilling, but materially less than the Indian rupee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But why is it larger than the English shilling unless it is for the purpose of deceiving the native?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the native may perhaps be a little more knowing than the hon. Gentleman gives him credit for.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that a suitable arrangement to compel these unfortunate natives to carry 100 coins for every 1s. in view of the fact that they have no pockets to put them into?

The following is the statement promised:

The proposals for replacing coin by coin are as follows:


Present Coin.
Sterling Value.
Future Coin.



s.
d.



1
rupee …
2
0

—


50
cents …
1
0
1
shilling.†


25
cents …
0
6
50
cents.†


10
cents …
0
2.4

—


5
cents …
0
1.2
10
cents.*



—
0
0.6
5
cents.*


1
cent …
0
0.24

—



—
0
0.12
1
cent.*


† New coins to be minted.


* The old coins to be used at half the present face value.

The question has been raised of the effect upon the holdings of natives in East Africa of the decision that, in consequence of the cent becoming the hundredth part of a shilling instead of a rupee, the present subsidiary coinage (1, 5, and 10 cent pieces) should be marked down instead of being replaced by new coinage.

The estimated face value of the coins of the above denominations in circulation is Rs. 1,074,327. Assuming that all these are in the hands of natives, and that none are permanently applied to purposes of ornament, the average holding of these coins for each of the 6,000,000 natives of Kenya and Uganda works out at about 18 cents, or, say, 2s. for a family of six, which, under the decision in question, would therefore incur a loss of 1s.

The reason for the decision is that, in a country such as East Africa, it is not an easy matter to replace one set of coins by another set bearing the same numbers but having a different value.

This confusion has to be faced in the case of the old and new 50-cent pieces. In the case of the 1, 5, and 10-cent pieces, it has been felt that the lesser evil would be to mark down the face value once for all, and by so doing protect the natives from the danger of recurrent frauds by the petty traders. There is the further practical point that the other and more important minting operations (i.e., for the new shillings and 50-cent pieces, which are urgently required) would be very seriously delayed if it were necessary to coin the very large number of millions of pieces which would be required to replace the existing small change.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ORPHANS.

Colonel BURN: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the amendment of Section 5 of the Education Act, 1870, to meet the case of orphans who are sent to one of the national children's homes and orphanages and the cost of whose education has to be met out of the rates?

Mr. FISHER: Section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, is repealed except so far as it defines public school accommodation, and I am not clear what is the exact legislative proposal which the hon. and gallant Member contemplates. The present is, however, not a favourable time for considering legislation which involves additional charges on the Exchequer.

Colonel BURN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is very hard that the charge of the cost of educating children sent from other districts by charitable organisations should be placed on a district where the sum actually collected as rates is a very small one?

Mr. FISHER: Anomalies still exist in several parts of the educational field.

Colonel BURN: But is it not particularly hard on some small districts where these homes happen to be situated?

CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 96.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue instructions that a public notice of not less than three months shall
be given where a local education authority makes application for the approval of an appointed day under the terms of the Education Act, 1918, in order that the ratepayers concerned may have adequate opportunity of considering the application in all its bearings?

Mr. FISHER: I presume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind appointed days for Section 10 of the Act. I should be unwilling to bind myself or my successors absolutely to a particular procedure which is not prescribed by Statute, but I quite agree that when proposals are submitted to the Board for fixing appointed days for this Section, ratepayers and other persons interested should have ample opportunities of submitting their views before any decision is arrived at. I have proceeded on this principle in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

Mr. D. HERBERT: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal what course it is proposed to adopt in view of the decision of the Committee of Supply as to travelling facilities for Members of Parliament, in regard to railway vouchers outstanding in the possession of Members, or hitherto used by them, and in regard to season tickets handed in by Members for surrender?

Commander BELLAIRS: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the decision of the Committee, what steps the Government has taken to cancel the vouchers already issued to Members for railway tickets?

Mr. LUNN: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the result of yesterday's Division, he can state what arrangements will be made in the case of those Members who have relinquished their railway season tickets to the authorities of the House, and who desire to travel home this week-end?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): In view of the decision to which the House came yesterday, the use of vouchers must, of course, cease at once, and Members who have unused vouchers in their possession are requested to return them to the authorities of the House. With regard to the case of
Members who have surrendered season tickets, I have made some inquiries in such time as was available, and I am advised that their case will be most conveniently met by their collecting the amount from the railway company, and then taking out new season tickets on their own account, current from the date of issue.

Mr. LUNN: May I have an answer to my question, which asks what Members are to do who are desiring to return home, say, to-morrow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They must take their tickets in the ordinary way. If an hon. Member held a season ticket, and surrendered it, and has received the money for it he is in a position to take out a new season ticket, and in the meantime he must take a ticket in the ordinary way. If he has surrendered his ticket, and has not yet received the refund, I am advised that the most convenient practice—some inconvenience, of course, cannot be avoided in the circumstances—will be that he should obtain his refund, and then take out his new season ticket should he wish.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that railway companies are not supposed to refund for a ticket taken out if you are not in possession of your pass or season ticket when travelling? Will that occur if some of us take out tickets to-morrow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. If an hon. Member has surrendered his ticket, and has been using a voucher, he has the advantage of what is past, unless the House should insist on that money being reclaimed from him, which I hope the House will not do. He will be at the disadvantage that, instead of having his season ticket to-morrow, he will have to take an ordinary return ticket until he can get a new season ticket. That will be the extent of the disadvantage.

Mr. STANTON: What will happen in the case of Members who naturally would have used their voucher to obtain a return ticket to get back home? What about their circumstances, supposing that they cannot afford to get back home?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Member will be no worse off than he was before it was proposed to introduce the measure of relief of which the House yesterday disapproved. My duty, with my col-
leagues, is to execute as closely and as rapidly as we can the decision of the House, and I am trying to do that with the least inconvenience to Members whose arrangements have been interrupted on the supposition that the policy of the House was going to be different. I am sorry that there must be some inconvenience, but I believe the arrangement I have suggested involves the minimum of inconvenience, and the most rapid compliance with the decision of the House.

Mr. STANTON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make it convenient for Members to get back home and start afresh next week if they want to do so?

Mr. FRANCE: Would it not be wise to get the consent of the House at the beginning before undertaking expenditure of any kind?

Major M. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making a return of those Members who used the vouchers, and then voted against them?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can now announce the business for next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On Monday and Tuesday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
The business for Wednesday will be definitely announced on Monday, but probably it will be the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.
On Thursday, Supply Day, we propose to take the Post Office Vote.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Could we be informed when the adjourned statement of the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Churchill) on the Middle East, which was promised for to-day, will be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Probably it will be the week after next, but I cannot at this moment definitely fix the day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could we be informed why it was postponed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was postponed, as I told the House last night, because we found it impossible to get the
information in time to frame the Estimate, so that it might be in the hands of Members for their consideration before to-day.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Polo!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, as I have good reason to know, is extremely anxious for an early day, and the kind of under-current of suggestion that he is playing with the House, in order that he may play elsewhere is quite unfounded and very unfair to him.

Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward: Could the Colonial Office Vote be put down in such a way that the question relating to child labour and the selling of women in Hong Kong could be discussed, because it is a very important subject, and, in view of the lukewarm attitude of the Colonial Office, an opportunity ought to be given to the House to come to a decision upon it.

Earl WINTERTON: Might I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that it has already been promised that the Vote shall be left open, so that it will be open to Members to discuss that matter on the second day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to my Noble Friend for answering the question.

Resolved,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relative to Emergency Powers Act, 1920 (Regulations), in Committee on Railways [Money], and on the Reports of the Committees on Housing (Scotland) [Grants], Overseas Trade [Credits and Insurances], and Finance [Consolidated Fund] have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Commander BELLAIRS: I wish, Sir, to direct your attention to the state of the Order Paper in regard to Irish questions. There are to-day 131 questions on the Paper, and 58 are addressed to the Irish Office or are questions addressed to the Prime Minister concerning Irish affairs. That is nearly one-half. The House can judge of the other questions and the Supplementary and Private Notice questions by what has already occurred. I submit that many of these questions are old and have been answered
again and again. They interfere with other Members of the House who want to ask questions of other Departments, and I wish to ask whether there is no remedy for this state of affairs. We have rationed Members with regard to questions; is it not possible to ration Ministers with regard to the questions that they are asked? You, Sir, have said that we ought to get through 100 questions per day. I submit that one-quarter of the questions on the Order Paper is a fair ration for any Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I do not see my way to ration Ministers. Perhaps their share of iniquity varies from time to time. May I observe that we have to-day got through over 100 questions, and I thank hon. Members for responding to my appeal of yesterday. It shows what is possible. My object is to defend legitimate supplementary questions. I can only do it if the House supports me in suppressing illegitimate and unnecessary supplementary questions.

Mr. CLYNES: Could you indicate what might be the number of questions on the Order Paper relating to any other part of the United Kingdom if it were governed the same as Ireland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which I should not like to answer.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I draw your attention to the fact that a number of questions addressed to the Irish Office were not asked because the Members were not here. That is another grievance, because many of these questions involve allegations of a very serious character against the Crown forces. The least that a Member can do if he makes such serious allegations is to be in his place to ask the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: We can all look at the Order Paper, and we all have some share of understanding. If the Member is absent, we can draw our own conclusions.

BILL PRESENTED.

MOTHERS' PENSIONS BILL,

"to provide for pensions for mothers,"presented by Mr. TYSON WILSON; supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. J. H. Thomas, and Mr. John Jones; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No.[...].]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1910) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Perth Corporation Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

SWANSEA GAS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (REGULATIONS).

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move,
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 27th day of May, 1921, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the Act.
The Regulations are identical with those which were presented to Parliament a month ago. Therefore, probably it would be more convenient if I reserved anything that I have to say till a later stage, in which case I shall be able to cover any criticisms and to reply to any points raised. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will merely move my Resolution now, and later on will give any information which the House desires.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "except Regulation 19."
My purpose in asking that this Regulation shall be deleted is to be found in the conditions that prevail to-day in the Courts up and down the country. We find as the result of the dispute in the mining industry, which was really the cause of these Regulation? having been introduced and passed in such a hurried manner, many working men, not only miners, but engineers and men engaged in various industries, who are arrested and brought to trial for what is called sedition. Even the magistrates and the judges who are trying those cases differ very materially as to what they believe sedition amounts to. We find in one part of the country men being sentenced for circulating a certain leaflet and in another part of the country men being dismissed when charged with circulating the same leaflet, the judge in this instance saying that the contents of the leaflet cannot be included in any charge of sedition as made by the police. Then we have newspaper offices being raided, not only in Ireland but in this country, we have editors being called to answer charges of sedition, we have printing
establishments brought before the Courts for printing these papers and leaflets, and we have even the homes of the employés in the offices belonging to these parties raided and searched, with the object no doubt of finding out if they have been taking home with them any of the literature that is being printed or published which the Crown authorities may consider of an incriminating character. In the attitude that has been adopted by the Government and the persecution—because one can call it by no other name—of working men such as we have at present, the Government is really fanning the flame that they imagine is burning, and they themselves, by the attitude they have taken up and by the manner in which their servants are carrying out what are undoubtedly the instructions of the Crown, are doing more than any agitator has done to cause disaffection among the people. When we consider what some of these men are charged with and we look back a few years and read speeches which have been made, not only in this House, where they are privileged, but on public platforms, and when we contrast the attitude adopted by the Government to-day with the attitude taken up to those individuals in the past we cannot wonder that working men throughout the country make complaints from public platforms that you have one law for the rich and for vested interests and another for the worker or for the poor. I have quotations to make from speeches which have been made in the past. I have one quotation to make which I made in the first speech I delivered in this House from a speech that is more incendiary in character and calculated to arouse more disaffection than any I have heard or have read that has been delivered by any working man standing upon even a Communist platform. It was made by a right hon. Gentleman who adorned the seat now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes), and who took his seat in another place yesterday with all the pageantry with which the taking of that position is usually associated. It was delivered by Sir Edward Carson, now Lord Carson, in Glasgow. Perhaps" that is the reason why Glasgow has become such a centre of revolutionary activity:
Now I want to say this for the benefit of the Lord Advocate. I want to tell him
that, so far as I am concerned, here within his jurisdiction I advise my fellow countrymen to resist to the end, even if it comes to using violence. I tell him more than that. I advise my fellow countrymen, even although it may never be necessary, and please God it never may be necessary to use them, to arm themselves as well as they can to beat back anybody who dares to filch from them the elementary rights of their citizenship.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. MACLEAN: I suggest that hon. Members who are approving this speech should go upon the platforms in the country, and use this quotation to the working men whom they are addressing, when the Home Secretary will speedily find a home for them.
I tell him something more. I tell him that if any violence arises out of my speeches he need not trouble himself about humble working men. He can come to me as the responsible author.
The responsible author has now gone where he will try cases instead of being tried for utterances such as these. That speech was delivered on 13th June, 1913. Another case appears in the Press this morning which is a parallel to the cases that took place in Ireland at that particular time. We have a lieutenant in the Army who declined to answer the call because he was well acquainted with the miners engaged in the dispute, and he has been summoned for disobeying the Proclamation. He exercised the same right of conscience that the Tory officers of the Army exercised in the Curragh when they declined to take any action in any dispute that might arise between the Government of that day and the Ulster people if Home Rule were given to Ireland, and there was a conflict between Ulster and the Southern Counties. It was agreed to permit those officers to have that right of conscience then. The officers were drawn mainly from the privileged classes. Here is a man who associates with the working men in his district, who is himself a working man. He showed himself capable during the War, not merely of winning decorations for courage and bravery, but he also received commissioned rank. He exercised the same right of conscience, but there is no relief for him.

Mr. SHORTT: What is the result?

Mr. MACLEAN: The case is pending. The point I want to bring out is that he
is being prosecuted, and the officers in the Army during the Curragh incident were not prosecuted. This is a case where there is an industrial dispute. The other was a political dispute, and you find the difference between the two cases that in an industrial dispute the working man who is an officer is summoned, whereas in the political dispute officers drawn from the privileged classes are allowed the right of conscience. Then we have the case of the circulation of two leaflets. One is called, "A Call to Action." It is issued by the National Workers' Committee Movement, Miners' Section. The other is a leaflet entitled "Clear for Action," and is issued by the National Workers' Committee. The Home Secretary cannot find in any line, in any paragraph in either of these leaflets anything which can by the widest stretch of the term be called sedition, yet men are being arrested for distributing them. One man is sentenced in Liverpool for the circulation of the leaflet "A Call to Action" to one month's imprisonment with £100 for his good behaviour or a further two months if he fails to pay the £100. The printers of the leaflet are fined £50. We have in another part of the country another case of the circulation of the same leaflets in which the magistrate dismisses the charge relating to the "Call to Action" circular, and with regard to the other bound the defendants over on the understanding that no more would be distributed.

Mr. SHORTT: I think the hon. Member will find that the magistrate is stating a case with regard to that leaflet for the decision of a higher court.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am reading the charge in the Liverpool case.

Mr. SHORTT: It is the same case.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will read the decision:
The stipendiary ruled that there was nothing in the 'Call to Action' leaflet other than an invitation to other workers to take part in the strike, and that it fell entirely within the terms of exception in the Regulation. It was a peaceful invitation in the sense that the leaflets were just handed to people to read if they so desired.
He dismissed the charge relating to the "Call to Action."

Mr. SHORTT: He is stating a case.

Mr. MACLEAN: He dismissed the charge, whether he is stating a case or
not. He considers there is no sedition. In the other instance, it is held that there is sedition. Two different points of view are held by men who are trained in the reading of the law.

Mr. SHORTT: There is nothing new in that.

Mr. MACLEAN: There may be nothing new in it, but it is absurd that in the one case the man should suffer and that in the other case the magistrate takes a different view. There is the case of a printing press with which I happen to be associated, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have been asked, because we print certain literature, which is at present before the court, to sign a document which would even prevent us from printing the Bible. The document is so worded that we could not print anything that might be considered a leaflet or an appeal to individuals to join an ordinary trade union branch. That, of course, may be looked upon as sedition by some hon. Members of this House.

Mr. JAMESON: Which part of the Bible is that?

Mr. MACLEAN: I have passed that particular point. If the hon. Member does not know that I have passed away from that he can still dwell upon it. We are being asked to sign a statement which would prevent us carrying on our business as printers, and we have been asked to do so by the. Home Secretary's servants in the Court. On the other hand, we find that other individuals can print information of the most astounding nature, and my right hon. Friend declines to take action. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend and the House if there is anything more calculated to bring the Government of this country into contempt amongst the people of this country than an accusation that Members of the Government are actuated by personal motives and indulge in actions that are going to bring pecuniary results to them selves. There is the case that I have been trying to raise in this House, the case of "Plain English," accusing two Cabinet Ministers of corruption. The Cabinet Ministers have declined to act as individuals and the Government has declined to take action to clear itself as a Government. This individual continues to print these articles. They appeared in the last
issue. This man goes scot free, while working men, who are circulating literature, working men who in their spare time are editing small trade union or working-class papers, are being harried and hounded and in some cases sent to gaol. Again the working man wants to know what it is all about. Again he says there is a law for the rich and another for the poor, that the law is not impartial. The working man wants to know why you do not take action in the case I have mentioned. Refusal to take action implies to him that there is really something in the charge, and that the Government is afraid that something will come out if the charge is brought into the open Court, and that they prefer to allow this man to go on doing what he is doing rather than risk the publicity that might result from bringing it into the open Court. On the other hand, you arrest working men and working women for publishing things that are not one-half so calculated to bring the Government of this country into contempt.
Sir Richard Muir has given a definition of the things that can be brought within the term "sedition," and his definition is most curious. He deals with particular statements that a certain party wishes to establish a republic in which people will be socially and economically equalled, and be goes on to ask the question, "If that is not sedition, what is?" Is it sedition to say that men should be socially and economically equal? Yet he wants to know what is sedition, if that is not sedition. When was it considered to be sedition, and how long has it been considered to be sedition for men to advocate that conditions in this country should be improved? Not only conditions of employment, but the reward of industry, the reward of those who take part in industry? When has it been considered sedition to advocate such ideas as these? If that is sedition, then in the prosecutions that are or will be before the courts there is not a trade union organisation, there is not a political organisation that will not be brought within the scope of the terms laid down by this Regulation according to the point of view that is taken by the individual responsible for imposing this Regulation. The Labour party itself claim to be in opposition to the Government of this country. At the present time in the by-election now proceeding in Heywood, by the literature that we are circulating
there in support of our candidate, we may be brought within the definition of sedition laid down by Sir Richard Muir. The Labour party could be brought to Court, the Guilds League, the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society—all these could be brought within the scope of this Regulation according to the definition which is now being placed upon the term sedition.
After the country took such a great part in fighting for liberty and to establish liberty, you are seeking to saddle the people of this country with what before the War was common in Germany, namely, the putting down of meetings, the imprisonment of trade union organisers and political organisers opposed to the Government. It seems that after having won the War the only importations we bring into this country free of any tariff are the German conditions of Prussianism that prevailed before the War. You place no tariff upon them. They are not, I suppose, a key industry, but you take good care that you retain them as a monopoly, so that you can place hardship upon those people of this country whom you can bring within the scope of Regulation 19. The whole thing has been conceived in a fit of alarm and panic by the Government, and with their big majority they wish to rush things through the House because they look upon the present industrial dispute as the prelude to revolution, as the prelude to the time when the gutters in our main streets will be running with blood. We have been in this dispute now for a number of weeks, and there has been no disaffection. There have been very few disturbances, certainly no disturbances that have been greater than have taken place in lock-outs or strikes of a smaller magnitude than the one now going on. To bring in this wide-sweeping series of Regulations reduces the Government of this country to a farce and makes it appear that the Government is afraid of any man who dares to stand on a soap box at the street corner and denounce the Government.
If what these men are saying to-day, namely, that they are out to destroy the power of this Government, is sedition, how many right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite would be free from such
an interpretation of the situation? When they have been in opposition to the Government they have always gone round the country addressing meetings and pointing out the necessity of destroying the power of the iniquitous Government that was then in office, and asking the electors to believe what they said, and to return them to power so that they might destroy that Government. They have come into power, and now they want to take away from the opposition in the country the right to adopt similar methods, the method of educating the electors, of pointing out to the people how they are affected by the rule of the Government in power, in an effort to convert that electorate into a healthy and intelligent opposition, to sweep the Government of the day out of power. Is that sedition? Of course it is not; but it is sedition when it applies to working men. I know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say. He will reply that it is inciting to rebellion, inciting to violence. In the "Call to Action" leaflet can he quote anything that is an incitement to violence? Can he quote a phrase that he could use in this House to prove the case against any individuals who have been arrested and are being charged with the circulation, or even with the printing, of these leaflets, as inciting to violence? I challenge him to do it. I am certain from my reading of the leaflet that he cannot find in either of the leaflets a sentence that can be looked upon as a direct incitement to violence, or that can even by any legal twisting that he may care to place upon it be interpreted as an incitement to violence.
I appeal to the Government to withdraw Regulation 19. We ask them to accept the Motion which we have placed before the House. It is the right of the people of this country to agitate for the reform of the conditions from which they believe they are suffering. If you shut off that right of publicly agitating for the reforming of those conditions, you immediately drive these people to agitate by subterranean methods. It is preferable to have all the agitation on the surface, where the action can be seen, where the people can realise that they are not prevented from agitating for the bettering of their conditions, that the law is not acting repressively on them, and that they can stand on any platform and express their opinion without the fear of
a policeman's hand coming upon their shoulders and their being marched off to the police station, because they are stating their conviction as to what should be the Government of this country, and standing upon that platform and exercising the right of educating and converting the people of this country to their own views.

Major WATTS MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I predicted early in May, when the Regulations were being introduced, that, as far as our district was concerned—and I only presume to speak for the district in which I live—they were uncalled for and unnecessary. That was at a time when the dispute was only in its early stage because of the notice tendered by the owners to the workmen to terminate their contract, as a result of which the lock-out occurred. We have been in the lock-out now for ten weeks, and these Regulations, so far as my district is concerned, have not been necessary. I pointed out early in May that the miners—and we have nothing else in the Rhondda Valley—and their families in our district were peaceably disposed towards everybody, and I am glad to be able to say that what I prophesied then has been borne out. We have not had a cupful of disturbance that could not have been dealt with by the local police without the introduction of what I call, and what our people call, foreigners—for we are Welsh people, and everybody who comes to the district from outside is more or less a foreigner or an alien. We have had a very large number of foreign police, in that sense, and military, introduced into our district, and yet the stipendiary magistrate in the district has upon several occasions during the ten weeks of the dispute remarked upon the peaceful behaviour of the men, and thanked the local leaders for the work which they have done in controlling their people and keeping the district peaceful.
Through the efforts of the local leaders amicable arrangements have been made whereby all the pumping required in the district, and all other measures of safety that were absolutely necessary, have been carried out by peaceable arrangement by conference between the accredited representatives on both sides, and there has been no shadow of interference with the workmen who have been employed in carry-
ing out that work. I said in my former speech that the introduction of a large body of police imported from elsewhere would have a tendency to irritate and disturb the peace of the district, and yet under this Regulation 19—I am not going into the merits because, I suppose, that I shall be told by the Home Secretary the legal position, that those cases are sub judice—in this district where we have no disturbances we have 500 summonses issued against the local leaders and their wives during the last fortnight. In some cases as many as 20 summonses have been served on the one individual. I wish to emphasise that the behaviour of the imported police is not at all satisfactory in our district. I am not taking this from workmen who are locked out, who may have some cause to have feeling in the matter, but on two or three occasions when I returned from my constituency I have been approached by ministers of religion, including two vicars residing in my constituency, and commercial travellers from Cardiff and elsewhere, and they have called my attention to the disgraceful way in which workmen and women were continually being hustled and insulted.
It is true that in demonstrations that have been held women are taking a part, and there is no reason in the world why they should not. We have heard it sometimes said that women are not interested in this question. So far as my constituency is concerned, they do take a very intense and active interest in it, and these citizens, many of them from outside the district, and who have no interest in the matter, have come to me voluntarily, asking me to call attention to the scandalous treatment to peaceful people when demonstrating. These demonstrations were stopped, and attempts were made in every direction to provoke these people to commit a breach of the peace. I am proud to think, notwithstanding all that irritation, that they have refrained from any disturbance. That is due to the influence of the local leaders. Whenever the police came to the stage that it was plain that they were determined to get a disturbance, the local leaders have prevailed on the people to disband. This has taken place in a time of distress, as at present.
I want to pay this respect to the military, and to say that they have assisted
in the work of relieving distress and in arranging football matches and open air concerts, which we promote in order to give the people something to think about rather than be in the streets, but even these gatherings have been disturbed by the police. All meetings organised in our trade unions at present are attended by the police and detectives in plain clothes. I have gone from this House, and have addressed the mining members of my constituency and I have found the police and the detectives, who were imported into the district, there, and, notwithstanding that, I have taken, I hope, some little part in seeing that the safety arrangements were being carried out, I have received very distorted views from the Chief Constable's office and the deputy Chief Constable's office, which is close to my division, of what I was reported to have said at these meetings. All the local leaders who have had a share in making these arrangements with regard to pumping and who have been explaining why that has been done, and who have attended some of these demonstrations, are at present being prosecuted, and it does not conduce to the peace of our district that these men who are prominent and have done everything they possibly can in order to keep the peace in the district, are now being prosecuted because they pursue what is their right and indeed what is their duty under the trade union rules to explain to the members and to see that these things are carried out.
I obtained a return in this House with regard to the statement that there were 40 collieries flooded in consequence of the lock-out. I have taken the trouble to examine that return. First of all I want to say that here in the district where we have wholesale summonses in the South Wales coalfield there is not a single colliery flooded in consequence of lockout. In Scotland there is a number, there is a number in Northumberland and Durham, and there are three in Staffordshire, but out of the 40 more than 25 of them are collieries that would only be worked in boom times—that is to say when trade is good and the price of coal is high—and they are more or less always on other occasions flooded as a natural consequence. I do not think that that statement ought to have been circulated as an answer in this House without some
explanation of the kind which I am now offering because it does put the miners obviously in a wrong light, that an accusation should be made against them which is not true.
I am not going into the merits of the dispute other than to point out some of the grievances under which we are now labouring with regard to Regulation 19. I hope sincerely that the Home Secretary will see his way to withdraw that Regulation. If we are to maintain the peace of the district we can only do it with the strength and loyalty of the local leaders who are being prosecuted to-day. It is not a bit of use for me or anybody else who sits in this House, who is not continuously at home with the men, to attempt to lead or control them unless we get the active support and co-operation of the local leaders at home. An attempt has been made to prejudice them at present in holding peaceful meetings, and such meetings were banned, though no one was being molested. The Home Secretary would render a service in bringing about good feeling and hastening the end of the dispute by withdrawing the Regulation. I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JAMESON: Perhaps it is best to dispel from, our minds the picture that has been conjured up before our eyes by the hon. Member who has just spoken, of upon one side the meek and lamb-like miner and on the other side the brutal policeman and the tyrannical Government. The miner is just as human as other people. He is a very good fellow. He did very well in the War. Taken by himself, when not led astray, he is a very good fellow indeed. I have no doubt that in the part of the country where my hon. Friend comes from, South Wales, there was at once a rush of all men to the safety machinery and great anxiety to keep the peace going in the Rhondda Valley and everywhere else.
5.0 P.M.
Although his part of the country may be exceptionally mild and peaceful and lamb-like, it does not follow that other parts are equally amenable to sweet reason. Even in Fife, that part of the country with which I am acquainted, I did hear certain echoes of a little disturbance. I know that the people who raided Thornton Station and held up the railways were under the Sinn Fein flag,
and were mostly Irish, and I know that the people were great hotheads who smashed up thousands and thousands of pounds' worth of machinery in the Fife mines and did enormous damage there I also know that in my own country of the Lothians there was a flying squad going round and threatening to chuck the men down the pit if they worked, and that that squad was entirely composed of Sinn Fein Irishmen. But these things did occur. We do not want to rake up old tales, but it is the attitude of the last speaker in drawing this picture of the absolute peace and harmony in which the miner lives with the rest of the country that constrains me to say that the Government were perhaps very well advised to contemplate the possibility of danger and disturbance in the mining districts. It is true that the danger stopped, that the miners put on the safety men again or allowed the safety men who were on to continue their work. But certainly they did not do it until after the Reservists had been called up and the Defence Force had been formed. Although I am delighted to learn that in South Wales everybody keeps the peace, and that the watchword, "Blessed are the peacemakers," prevails, and not the motto that one sometimes thinks must inspire some of the leaders, "Blessed are the makers of war," yet there are other parts of this island not so favoured.
The moral is that the Government are perfectly in order and justified in arming themselves with certain exceptional powers and in taking precautions that, while the liberties of the subject are not unduly invaded, the peace and the safety of the community are the first considerations. This is not a matter of privileged classes at all. There is no word I detest more than the word "class "now a days. I detest all these divisions between men and fellow countrymen. The first people who were struck at, though not under these emergency Regulations, were my poor friend and honourable brother, the Member for East Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone), and Miss Sylvia Pankhurst. They both belonged to what I suppose would be called the privileged class, and yet both of them were confined to a dungeon cell. It proves that there is not a peculiar animus on the part of the Government against any
class or section of the community. I agree that these powers ought to be used with the greatest care, and I am far from approving altogether of the Act which deprives us of the company of the hon. Member for Leyton East. He said, I believe, that he wanted to hang the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to attack another hon. Member who is absent. The hon. Member for Leyton East was not prosecuted for that, but for saying that in certain circumstances—it was hypothetical, and a distinguished lawyer will appreciate the point—he would want to do certain things.

Mr. JAMESON: It was perhaps very deplorable, but that extremely deplorable ambition is, as far as I can gather, shared by about 90 per cent. of His Majesty's lieges in this island just now. I think that perhaps in that case the Government did not do very much good by prosecuting the hon. Member. I was speaking really for the mitigation of punishment in such cases as his. All other countries take the view that the liberty of the subject is protected in a most extraordinary way in this country. Will future generations in this country even believe it possible that an enormous conspiracy of this sort, frankly intended to blockade the community, to starve it of necessary supplies, to turn working men into the streets and to deal a deadly blow at the industry of this country, as the coal trade dispute does, was allowed? I think future generations will probably say that that is the most miraculous thing, and that so far from the trade unions being deprived of proper liberty they are indulged in the most extraordinary way with liberties and luxuries that are unknown in any other civilised country in the world. The miners are not content with the entire profits of the industry, plus £10,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, and they refuse—the miners' leaders, not the miners—to return to work.
I know that in my own constituency and part of the country, at many street corners there are people preaching red revolution. They do not cut any ice. The working man does not believe in that sort of thing. He does not want to see Edinburgh and Glasgow reduced to the same plight as Moscow and Petrograd.
These people are just allowed to go on and no one pays any attention to them, least of all the working man; but there are certain regions in which inflammatory literature can be spread abroad and put into the hands of certain half-baked and half-educated young men, with results that are calculated to be disastrous, very prejudicial to these men, and dislocating to the whole peace of the country. When that sort of thing may happen, and when you have a good deal of explosive material lying about, it is right that the Government should arm itself with these exceptional powers, but certainly the powers should be—I believe they have been—exercised with the greatest caution and discrimination. You could not possibly rule out Regulation 19 altogether, because it is directed also to the maintenance of the means of transit and locomotion and other things. We hope the danger has passed, but after all we are not yet out of the wood. The fight is still going on. It is not the general community that called the fight, but this big trade union—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We cannot afford to lay down our armour yet. That is the justification for maintaining Regulation 19. The history of the strike so far has shown that the Govern men have displayed great caution and leniency in any proceedings taken under the Regulations.

Mr. T. SHAW: I wish to support the Amendment. I do not intend to pay much attention to the fact that the last speaker consistently ignores the fact that the miners are out of work, not because they tendered notices, but because they had notices tendered to them. It would be much better for the workers and for the people of the country if we all tried to look facts in the face. It is a miserable misrepresentation and a dangerous misrepresentation continually to ignore the fact that the employers posted notices, and to insist that the miners went out on strike. Not only is an allegation of that kind untrue, but it is positively dangerous for the peace of the country. We can get peace only when each of us tries to face the facts and to speak the truth. Misrepresentation cannot help. The particular objection I have to this Regulation is that only in a state of grave emergency should anything be done to limit the right of a Briton to speak his opinion on any
subject whatever. That right is one of the most sacred of our possessions—the right to express oneself freely in any place on any subject. Will this Regulation take away that right? Some of the prosecutions undertaken have been stupid because they were quite unnecessary, they did not do any good, and they were an abrogation of the right of a Briton to express his opinions without any disability whatever. Take the Regulation as it stands. What does it mean? What is "Creating disaffection amongst the civilian population"? Anything in the world can be brought under that wide sweeping statement. To create disaffection is surely to make a man dissatisfied. If I go out now and say that in my opinion this Government is the worst Government of modern times—which I sincerely believe—cannot I be accused of trying to create disaffection against the Government and cannot I be brought under the strict wording of this Clause? The right hon. Gentleman knows perhaps better than I do what language means, but disaffection, if I understand English, means anything in the nature of dissatisfaction against any person or persons. I do not see the necessity at all for the Regulation, and I do not believe it does any good. There has been far too much panic on the part of the Government. They have flown to measures which show them to be suffering from a bad attack of nerves. I hold that not only is liberty of opinion one of our most precious possessions, but that good steel nerves represent one of our proudest attributes. I ask, though I fear I shall ask in vain, that this Regulation be taken away, and that the Government will not give way to an attack of nerves by prosecuting people for making statements that do not hurt anybody. Even the last speaker admitted that these soap-box orations do not cut any ice. Why go running around the country trying to find out if Bill Smith or Jack Jones is saying that the Government is not all that it should be? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I must beg pardon. There is, after all, more than one Jack Jones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] In order to lead a peaceful life in this House I will admit, then, that there is only one. I will do anything for the sake of peace, and it is for the sake of peace I want this proposition to be taken into consideration. If there is one thing more than another that leads to real class
hostility it is the feeling that powers such as these are never invoked except against a certain class of the community. There are so many examples that can be quoted of a poor man being prosecuted and a rich man allowed to go free—so many cases that can be quoted with deadly effect—that everything done in this direction tends, not to create peace, but to create greater diversity of opinion and greater enmity. That is my case against this Regulation, and I am hoping against hope that it will be deleted. The party for which I speak will never be satisfied until there is a direct right given to everybody in the community to express his or her ideas frankly and freely, provided those ideas are not direct incitements to violence and breaches of the peace. We hold that the liberty which is truly British should be maintained, and that liberty, in our opinion, is directly struck at by this Regulation.

Mr. SHORTT: The peroration of my hon. Friend is one with every word of which I can agree. Nobody in this House would dream that men should be prosecuted for advocating honest opinions which were not incitements to violence or disorder. I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that in that spirit these Regulations were framed; in that spirit and to that effect are they worded, and in that spirit have they been carried out. The Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have delivered apparently prepared attacks against the way in which prosecutions have been conducted under the Regulations. So far as the Seconder was concerned, he confined himself to dealing with the case of miners who have been prosecuted in South Wales, but the Mover directed his attention rather to those who were prosecuted under the Regulations for incitements to violence. Like a good advocate, he ferreted round to find what was the weak spot in the case he was attacking, and upon it he fastened his attention. One would imagine to hear him addressing the House that there was no pamphlet issued and no pamphlet before the Courts except this "Call to Action," and that no more than one or two persons had been prosecuted under the Regulations. He seized on the fact that two Courts have disagreed as to the effect of a certain pamphlet, quite overlooking the fact that it will probably be matter for discussion in a higher Court still. He said nothing
about all the other cases, many of which he must have known perfectly well. We did not hear of the men who went about among the Reserve Forces and the Defence Force advising them if they got the order to shoot to turn round and shoot their officers. We heard nothing about those who were prosecuted for telling angry men out of employment and with starvation in front of them, for all they knew: "What is the use of the ballot? To hell with the ballot. Take to the bomb." We heard nothing of the men who said: "What good are you people. Here you are going to starve. Why do not you do as the Russian peasants did? They cleared everyone out of their way, and they are not starving." It is perfectly true there is one case out of a lot where two courts differed and where there is a great deal to be said as to whether a certain leaflet does in fact come within the Regulations. My friend, as I have said, like a good advocate, seized on that case and made the most of it, and if he had been at the Bar we would have congratulated him. The House, however, will appreciate that there is a great deal more than that. It is all very well for people to say, "What is the good of prosecuting these men; they cut no ice? "At most times. In time they do not. If one goes out into Hyde Park, or any place in London on a sunny Sunday, after the midday meal, with a pipe, and feeling happy and contented, he will say on listening to these speeches, "What rubbish this is." But take a lot of men who are angry and perhaps hungry, who see nothing but a bad future before them, and they are a very different audience to be addressed in that way. It is to prevent that sort of preaching in that sort of circumstances that the Regulations are framed and carried out.
My hon. Friend who seconded and who I am sorry is not in his place, was addressing himself to an Amendment which moved that Regulation 19 be omitted, but in his speech he did not address one single remark to anything that was done under the Regulation. He spoke of prosecutions in South Wales. I have had a list prepared of these prosecutions and of prosecutions in other parts of the country. They are instituted by the local police and brought under the ordinary law. They have got nothing to do with the Regulations. In every case
in South Wales the prosecutions were under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act which has been the law of the land since 1875, and they were prosecutions either for intimidation or assault. If that is the case, then the Mover of the Resolution takes one case out of many and ignores the rest, while the Seconder quotes all sorts of cases which have nothing whatever to do with these Regulations. We know both of them quite well enough to know that if they had any case they would have put it before this House. If this is all they have to bring forward, I do not think I need trouble further with it. Let me enter a protest against the way in which wild charges are made about indiscriminate prosecutions and the persecution of those who hold certain views.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, hear!

Mr. SHORTT: Hon. Members in that quarter know perfectly well there is no such thing as persecution of this kind May I quote a report which I read this morning of a meeting held in one of the Committee Rooms of this House on the question of freedom of speech. A statement was made—I have no doubt it came from one of my North country friends—that in some parts of Durham the police were actually prosecuting newsagents because they sold the "Daily Herald," that lists of those who bought the paper were being demanded, and that in other places the names and addresses of trade unionists were being collected. Of course, it would be most improper if the police were prosecuting anybody for selling a paper which is allowed to be published. If it was a paper which had been suppressed, then it might be the duty of the police to prevent the sale, but so long as the publication of the paper is permitted it is wrong of the police to do so, and it would be at once stopped if they made any attempt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: These police are not under your Office.

Mr. SHORTT: They are not, I agree, but still a representation made by me, would I know certainly in the case of Durham be acted upon loyally. The moment I read that, I got into telephonic communication with the Chief Constable, careful inquiries were made and these are the facts upon which a wild general state-
ment of that sort was based. On the night of the 21st or the 22nd of May, just at the time when incendiary fires were going on in that district, a constable saw two men running from a haystack which was near a colliery. He gave chase but could not catch them, and on returning to the stack he there found a bottle of inflammable substance. It was wrapped in a copy of the "Daily Herald." [Laughter.] Yes, that is the sort of thing which makes the hon. Gentleman laugh. It is the only argument he has got. At the top corner of this copy of the "Daily Herald" was written the name of the person to whom it was to be delivered. We all know how a newsagent puts on the corner of a paper the name of the person for whom it is intended. This was the only clue the police could get, and they very properly followed it up by trying to find out if any newsagent had any customer of the name of "Ball" who took the "Daily Herald." What is wrong with that procedure? Yet that is the sort of thing out of which these wild charges are made—charges with just sufficient truth in them to make them half truths, and we know how those have been designated by a great person. I do ask hon. Members at least to be fair in the criticisms they make upon the police, and may I venture to put another request to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who disapprove of the Regulations. I can assure them that if they know of any case where they think there has been a miscarriage of justice or an unnecessary prosecution, if they will only let me know the circumstances, I will inquire into them at once. If on full information they still think they ought to take the matter up, well and good, but any information I can get them, which will help them really to see what the truth is, I shall be only too glad to get. I know that not a single one of the hon. Members from the County of Durham would desire to say an unfair thing about the police. If they had just asked me, "Is this true?" I could have had the same inquiries made. They know the Chief Constable as well as I do and that he is thoroughly to be trusted. They could have got that information, and a wild charge against the police of that county would never have been made. The House has heard the attack made on this Regulation. I have dealt with it to the best of my ability, and I ask the House to agree with the Government that
this Regulation is still absolutely necessary. It was not drafted in panic; it was drafted months ago. We are not suffering from panic or from nerves, but we know this is necessary, and we know the good it has done, to prevent men who have nothing whatever to do with the mines but who intended to use a big industrial dispute for purposes of violence if they could possibly do so. It is directed against those people, and those people alone.

Mr. CLYNES: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those of us who are criticising these Regulations and object strongly to certain of them have no wish -to reflect upon the general conduct of the agents of the law, whether policemen or any other men, in different parts of the country. Our complaint is directed more against the Government and against acts of policy on the part of Ministers than against agents of the law in the different centres. The Home Secretary in the first instance thought proper to say nothing at all to the House in support of the Motion which he has made in regard to these Regulations. I thought that an extraordinary step. I do not imply that he meant any discourtesy to the House, but at least I think it meant that he felt that there was very little to be said—

Mr. SHORTT: I carefully asked the House, and no one appeared to show the least dissatisfaction with what I was doing. I explained that the Regulations were exactly the same as the Regulations made a month ago, and in those circumstances I thought it would be more convenient to the House if I reserved what I had to say until there was time to answer any criticisms.

Mr. CLYNES: It is for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House the statement he did that I am complaining. In my judgment that is not the course which ought to be followed. It is not for a Minister to wait to see if there is any criticism to the absence of a statement. It is, I think, for a Minister to give reasons why a certain course is being followed by the Government, and I deny that the situation is what it was two months ago, or one month ago. These are emergency Regulations, introduced two months ago because there was an emergency produced by the stoppage in the coal industry and by the threatened stoppage on the railways and in our
transport services. Those were the conditions which produced the emergency. Who can say that there is such an emergency now? Is it not a fact that all the conditions of the emergency which produced a sense of fear in the minds of the Government and a feeling of apprehension and disturbance in the minds of the public have entirely disappeared? It is true that the miners are not at work. Into the merits of the coal stoppage I cannot enter, but the rest of the workers, so far as they can remain at their work, are employed and are not participants at all in the industrial struggle. There is no disturbance on the scale or of the kind feared when these emergency Regulations were introduced. A month ago, when we repeated our objections to these Regulations, we were told that there was still some dread that there might be disturbances requiring the authority of these Regulations. As a fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself has had to confess that many, if not most, of the cases to which he has referred are cases which were dealt with, not under these Regulations, but under either the ordinary law or under the other features of extraordinary law that were passed during the course of the War and still remain with us. The two instances given by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) affecting Sylvia Pankhurst and the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Malone), who is still in prison, are cases typical of those instances of exceptionally strong and provocative language that can be dealt with by the Government and the courts of law without any such Regulations as these.
I would like to know upon what ground the Home Secretary is going to rest his case. Is it that the law is not strong enough without these Regulations? Then some case ought to be made out to show that the law is not strong enough and that there are certain offences which cannot be dealt with unless you have these Regulations passed. If there is no need for these Regulations, and cases can be dealt with without them, the course to be taken by the Government is to withdraw these Regulations, and not to take up the time of the House in repeated discussions on matters that evidently do not affect the general application of the law of the land. In other words, we object to stereotyping as part of the general law of the land
Regulations that were intended for an emergency, to deal with a momentary and passing situation, a situation which has passed and which does not require any such provisions of the law as are embodied in these Regulations. We ought not to make, as there is a tendency to make, these Regulations a permanent part of the legal system of this country. That, I think, is a sound objection which the right hon. Gentleman has in no way dealt with. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment dealt with the position in South Wales. In the beginning of the dispute I think you had in South Wales, and in some parts of Scotland comparable cases of local, momentary trouble, but on the whole since then there has been a general and an admirable observance of the law. That observance was welcomed by those who appealed for it, namely, the responsible leaders of the men, both nationally and in the different localities. The general good sense of the people, and not these Regulations, has maintained observance of the law in this country, and the Government ought to have regard to the law being not so much the mere wielding of instruments of power as a sense of doing right in the minds of the people, and they will retain and apply that sense in the degree that they feel that the Government is doing right by them.
The hon. Member for West Edinburgh said, quite rightly, that we do not want in Scotland what they have had in Moscow and Petrograd, but proceed upon these lines—what I call the Petrograd and Moscow lines—of persecution, and eventually you will get the same results. All the agitators of Moscow and Petrograd had only at any time to open their mouths against what was called a government, a monarchy, a condition of rule, to be sent to Siberia, to be expelled from their country, and thereby, naturally, there grew a tendency to revolution, a complete disregard for the law, such as it was. I say that if you raise the number of 60 instances, which are now on record for this year of cases where proceedings have been taken against British subjects, to 600, and from 600 to 6,000, you will travel fast towards the conditions that have produced your modern Moscow and your modern Petrograd. If you want to have the law observed, you must have the spirit of that
traditional British toleration for which this House has stood and has so repeatedly defended. Within this House itself, if there was not a very large measure of toleration, indeed, our work would be impossible. In such a clash of interests and such a conflict of opinions, with every motive tending to bring men into collision, if there was not a very large measure of toleration governing our relations towards each other, we could not even conduct our Debates, not to say settle down to general questions of Parliamentary, responsible action. Toleration within this House should be reflected outside. It is not the right of those who are in power to punish people merely for the violent expression of their opinions. Many of us who sit on these benches are more strongly denounced in these leaflets, to which the Government has objected, than is the Government itself. That does not matter. We must stand for right, no matter who might be the individual who claims it. We must stand for the law and for the equitable application of the law, no matter who might be concerned.
I regret to conclude from what I heard from some quarters in the House this afternoon that the view seemed to be that it was right and proper to suppress the printing of papers and documents which the Government did not approve of. The right hon. Gentleman objects to violence. We all do, but he has said nothing as to the special case brought before his attention by the Mover of the Amendment. May I repeat two of the sentences in which violence was openly advocated and supported by the Noble Lord who has now been made a Law Lord of this country, who in spite of his advocacy of violence has been given, not a place in a cell, but a seat in the House of Lords and is put in a position to administer the law. There is a good deal in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). He said, and said rightly, that there is a growing feeling that the law is showing itself too partial and is not being applied fairly, that it does not deal alike with rich and poor, with men in high station and with men in low station, that it takes poor men, because under conditions of great stress and suffering they speak violently, and it puts them in prison,
while it takes other men and gives them honours and distinction, though they have done the same thing. Lord Carson of Duncairn, speaking on the occasion which has been referred to, said, with especial reference to the Lord Advocate, because he was then speaking in Glasgow:
I want to tell him that so far as I am concerned, here within his jurisdiction I advise my fellow countrymen to resist to the end, even if it comes to using violence; I tell him that if any violence arises out of my speeches, he need not trouble himself about humble working men, but can come to me.
How is it that you can never extract from those who represent the Government of the day a reason why language of that kind was allowed, and why, even when that language was acted upon, and men were prepared with arms—German arms—in their hands, to resist the decrees of this House, no action was taken? I say there is in that an abundant proof that the law favours a man because a man, being powerful and rich, it is afraid to touch him, and now it is persecuting poor men, merely because they are advocating things which are unpopular, and which are as much opposed to trade union and party action as to the Government itself. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to those who have never said a word or done anything beyond seeking to earn their living in the ordinary way. Take the case of the lady clerks in the office of the "Communist." I do not know what their opinions are on these questions of Communism, politics, or economics. I do not suppose the Government knew, and yet the houses of four lady clerks were visited, rooms explored, and the members of the families catechised on their opinions upon the literature they had. Is that British? Is it a fact that the Englishman's home has ceased to be his castle, and that if a young lady be employed in a Communist office, she is to be persecuted in this way? Let me read a passage from a communication received from one of these young ladies. She said:
They asked to be taken upstairs—
That is, the agents of the law who visited this particular house—
they inspected my sister's room, and even my mother's room, submitting them to the same minute and humiliating inspection as I had suffered. They found nothing. On my father's arrival, they asked the address of his place of business, how many people he employed, and whether he belonged to any political organisation—all of which questions
greatly distressed him, as he had never had occasion to be cross-examined in any way. They waited for him for another hour, after having already spent an hour in the search. At nine o'clock at night they left, having spent two hours in all in an entirely futile search of various parts of the house.
There is an instance on which at once the Home Secretary should intimate that some action should be taken, with a view to preventing a repetition of that kind of case. I said there were 60 cases. So far as we can gather, that is about the number of persons who, during the course of this year, have been arrested, and in some way sentenced or dealt with under the head of these different offences. Out of 61 arrests, there have been 4 acquittals, 32 have been sentenced to imprisonment—in 7 cases to hard labour—and in 25 instances there have been second division sentences. In 14 cases fines ranging from £100 to £20 have been inflicted. Hon. Members may think that that is quite unimportant and cheer it as something proper, but this Government, like all other Governments will pass away, and there will be other Governments, and they will have these precedents. Let this policy develop into what may be suspected as a mere policy of revenge and persecution, and you will have it imitated by some Government who may succeed this. Hon. Members cheer and approve of prosecutions of that kind, many of which clearly are prosecutions encouraged by these Regulations, and undertaken merely because of opinions, which are not more than unpopular and violently expressed. The case of the printers requires a little more attention than the right hon. Gentleman gave it. There is a Labour Press. Its responsible managers and directors have been called upon to sign a document undertaking that they will not do certain things. These are the terms of the document:
In future the company shall not print or distribute any literature for any persons, whether the Communist party or others, who are known to hold such views and objects as are expressed in the literature which is the subject of the proceedings above mentioned, and which are in advocacy of revolutionary violence, sedition and disaffection.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether really it is fair to require that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right!"] I have no doubt it will be quite right in the view of some hon. Members to have a law passed absolutely to suppress any opinions other than their own, and to prevent the publication of any views or
doctrines of which they do not approve. I want to put to the Home Secretary seriously the view that to hold Communist views is not in itself an act or an offence against the law. Surely any one of us can believe, whether rightly or wrongly, wisely or foolishly, in any system of social or economic life without that view itself being regarded as a crime against the law. To hold Communist views, in my judgment, is no more illegal than to not Tory views. I would rather see, not merely in this Kingdom, but the world over, the peoples of the world existing under such conditions of economic life as would approximate to the peaceful principles of a Communist State than under a Tory administration.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Russia!

Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Gentleman is evidently not following what I am trying clearly to say. I absolutely disapprove the methods of certain Communists. I have repeatedly condemned the methods of physical violence which have been employed in Russia to establish what is falsely called a Communist state. I speak not of methods, but of one's conception of an economic system. I am trying to make myself clear, and my argument is that, just as you had a greater degree of violence in Russia because the Government previously employed a lesser degree of it, so might you have in this country a greater degree of violence committed, in breaches of the law, for the mere reason that the law itself was employing violence to suppress and put an end to these views. I ask for a return of a large measure of the toleration, so much respected and practised in this country—the toleration which permitted the republican, the atheist, the communist, the extremist, the anarchist, no matter what his views were. I say it is only by applying to the other man the degree of liberty that we claim for ourselves, that you can really practise the spirit and essence of that thing which we call British freedom. In other words, we can not say that we approve the law when it is in our favour, and claim the right to violate it when it is against us, and it is that line which certain men of wealth, influence and authority have taken in this country without any action being taken against them. I do firmly believe that, for instance, the lines of foreign policy of this Government—a matter into
which I cannot go—has had more to do in the last 18 months with producing elements of sedition in the minds of men, and producing tendencies towards revolutionary action, than all the preaching and talking of the few scores, or few hundreds, of Communists or revolutionists who have addressed open-air meetings in different parts of the country.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Has that reference to Russia?

Mr. CLYNES: That has not any particular reference to Russia. For the moment, I am saying a certain policy pursued by the Government has done more to produce in the minds of men a tendency to revolution, and to foment a spirit of sedition, than anything else that might have been done by open advocacy. The matter, in the narrow sense, before the House is Regulation 19, but the Chair has permitted a rather large indulgence upon general views on the whole of the other Regulations, and it would not help our purpose to put separately to the House any other Amendment with a view to provoking Divisions or consuming time. In the last observation, then, I ask the Home Secretary to say whether the time has not now arrived when these Regulations are absolutely unnecessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] All the conditions of two months ago have disappeared. The spirit that existed then is dead. There is no threat or evidence at all of any breaches of the law, and, without these Regulations, the law would be strong enough to cope with any difficulty which might arise in any place. There are the police force, the armed forces of the Crown and the usual resources of the law, which has many arms and many branches. Those, surely, are quite equal to any spasmodic breach of the law of any kind which might occur, and to take away these Regulations would be to admit that we have reached normal, and that there is no necessity whatever for these Regulations. The withdrawal of these Regulations would at least be one step towards creating a spirit of greater good will as between the employers and the miners' leaders in connection with the coal dispute, and perhaps would be a real step towards a speedier settlement of that quarrel than would otherwise be the case.

6.0 P.M.

Captain BOWYER: Usually in these Debates, I think, the point of view of the
Government is not backed up by Members on this side of the House, but I think that it is not fair that always all the speeches should come from the Benches opposite. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given us an extraordinary view of what the country might be like when, perhaps, it is his turn to change over to this side of the House. If I followed him aright, any man could get up in any place, under any circumstances, and give tongue to any views — Communist, revolutionary, or anarchist—and nothing should be done. He complained, amongst other things, that any man's house could be searched. Mine, as well as his, is subject to search by the police. I remember on one occasion when the house I was occupying, at school, was searched by the police. I did not make a song about it, and say that the police had subjected me to an indignity. If they had a primâ facie case for coming into the house, I personally—and I think most Members on this side of the House—rely upon the police to exercise that discretion and goodwill which, to my mind, is one of their chief characteristics.
The right hon. Gentleman read out extracts from the letter he has, none of which, so far as I can see, were full of the injustices and iniquities which he tried to read into them. My view is this, that the ordinary citizen can call upon the Government to maintain law and order. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes, that may be so in the case of an emergency, but the emergency has passed." The Government, if they followed the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, might fail to maintain law and order, and subsequently say, "We were not allowed to take all the precautions we wanted to take; the House of Commons said we were arming ourselves against an emergency which would never arise." It, however, would be too late to say that, for the emergency would have arisen. Personally, as an entirely unimportant Member of Parliament, I would like here and now to back up the Government in taking all the powers that a reasonable man would think they ought to have in a case of emergency, which, on my right hon. Friend's own showing, is only a month or two distant, and no settlement has yet been found. Then the right hon. Gentleman—and this is my last point—seemed to evince almost an
affection for Communist views. He said he preferred to be governed under a Communist régime than under a Tory régime. The only meaning I can read into that is that he would prefer to see a Communist Government established instead of the present Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "]

Captain W. BENN: A Tory Administration.

Captain BOWYER: Well, a Tory Administration. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has lived under a Tory Administration?

Captain BENN: We have one now.

Captain BOWYER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman prefer a Communist Administration to the Tory Administration that he has now? My point is this—and I will try to make it in a sentence—there are those of us who love this country just as much as any hon. Member sitting on the Labour Benches. I am not wishing to infer that those hon. Members do not love their country. We, however, include in our love of country the King and what we call patriotism. We may be entirely wrong, but we hate seeing a Red flag waved instead of the Union Jack. Is that very extraordinary? If the right hon. Gentleman himself prefers Communism and prefers the Red flag to the Union Jack, do not let him cast a slur upon those of us who prefer the Union Jack, the King, and what we call patriotism and love of country to his patriotism and his love of country, which may be as great, but is apparently a different type from ours.

Mr. WIGNALL: I want to say right away at once that these Regulations were not introduced on account of the coal dispute. We should never have been troubled with this long list of Regulations that we have to deal with to-day, it is said, if it had not been for the lock-out of miners. But there was another element. There was talk of the Triple Alliance and the action that would be taken to hold up supplies. It was the threat, the implied intention of the other two contracting parties of the Triple Alliance to come to the assistance of the miners that scared the Government into these hurried Regulations. I was very much surprised to hear the Home Secretary say that the condition of affairs is exactly as it was a month ago. Some of us who were sitting
in this House something like a month or five weeks ago on that memorable Friday afternoon must know the difference in the atmosphere of the House then and now. Everybody was in a state of mental excitement. There was more racing and chasing and running to the tape that afternoon than I have ever known, except yesterday, when all were running to see whether they were winners or losers on the race. On that Friday everybody was excited and rushing to see the tape, and to know what was the decision. The House was held up for hours, and everyone was anxious to know what was the decision of the railwaymen and the transport workers.
To-day, however, there is a difference. There is a cool, calm, serene atmosphere. Everybody seems quite happy and contended, and you hear somebody laugh below the Gangway, and there is noise in the Lobby, and that is the only indication we have in the House that any interest at all is taken in the thing. How, then, can the Home Secretary say that the condition of affairs to-day is precisely what it was a month ago! He seems to have forfotten that the main element in the dispute of a month ago has been removed out of it, and alone we are facing the position of the miners' dispute.
One has been a little bit surprised at the speeches to-day of some hon. Gentlemen who profess to know. They, however, only exhibit their own ignorance of our trade union movement. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) said that "the miners' leaders were keeping the dispute going; it was the miners' leaders who were responsible for the continuation of the dispute." He implied that the Home Secretary would be rendering a real service to the country if he locked up the whole of the miners' executive and all the miners officials, and thereafter, in the course of 24 hours, every colliery in the country would be in full working. What stupid ignorance of the real position! I have completed my 31 years' service as a trade union official. I have mixed with the great trade union movement during all that period. I make this statement here and defy contradiction, that I have never yet known a trade union official stirring up strife and seeking to create it, or seeking to make industrial disputes. On the contrary, trade union officials have devoted days and nights and weeks and
months to prevent disputes and settle them, so that we, with our practical knowledge and experience of the inner working of our trade union movement know how ridiculous it is for people to say that the trade union officials are they who create the strife and make the trouble. There is nothing further from the truth.
The same hon. Member to whom I have referred stated what I consider was the greatest insult to our educational system that I have ever heard. He said that we, or somebody, was distributing leaflets to a lot of half-baked, ignorant miners. "Half-baked, ignorant miners!" That was the expression of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh. "Half-baked, ignorant miners"; that was the expression I took down. Surely in all these years of our educational work we have turned out something better than half-baked young men in that sense of the term? I am not here to utter one word that would prolong the miners' dispute for a minute. I could not do it if I tried. No one wants the dispute to continue but to end for the good of the community. When one, however, is sitting here and listening to speeches made to the effect that the miners' leaders are responsible for a continuation of the dispute, when they are not responsible, it is very irritating.
We are, however, dealing with these Regulations. You have given us, Mr. Speaker, a certain latitude in dealing with the whole of the Regulations, although there is an Amendment before the House which deals with Regulation 19. The Regulations as a whole remind me very much of an incident that occurred on one occasion in my experience. I went to a certain town, and, like some other hon. Members, I found myself short of tobacco. I was in a strange town. I looked into a certain shop window, and I saw there certain brands of tobacco exhibited, as I thought. I went inside and inquired for a certain brand, and was told by the young lady that she had not got any. I asked for another brand, and the reply was the same. "But," I retorted, "you have that brand exhibited in the window." "Oh," she replied, "it does not follow that we have these various brands. That is only window dressing. They are all dummies." There are many of the Regulations printed in this pamphlet which are merely window-dressing because they will
never be applied. They have never to be used, and they are there for no purpose but as a bit of window dressing. Clause 19 and several other Clauses are the real factors in our industrial life. I think I heard the Home Secretary say that there have been no prosecutions out of the 60 cases that have been stated as having come under the Regulations.

Mr. SHORTT: Of all the prosecutions mentioned by the seconder of this Amendment, not one came under the Regulations.

Mr. WIGNALL: There are many others which did come under these Regulations. At any rate, that suits my purpose better, because I have been wondering why these men have been arrested, and put on trial, and why they have been committed to the Assizes. I sat in the smoke-room the other day for nearly half an hour reading the report of a case in South Wales of certain men who are now committed for trial. I read their speeches and the whole of the evidence that was given in the paper, and I wonder why these men were arrested for making speeches such as we all have made at different times. In my opinion it is because they were particular men, and not because of their speeches, and if anybody else had made the same speeches no notice would have been taken of them. These were responsible men holding certain positions, and although nothing followed as a consequence of their speeches, they were arrested and committed for trial.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it is in order to deal with cases which are admittedly sub judice. The hon. Member is referring to such cases, and they have been referred to the Assizes for trial.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I rather gathered that the hon. Member was only referring to the fact that the proceedings were taken under the Regulations, and not under the ordinary law. If that be so, I think he is in order.

Mr. WIGNALL: I took care not to mention the particular cases. I did not mention the name of a single person, and I was careful not to commit myself. I was wondering whether these prosecutions were carried out under the
Regulations or under the law that existed previously.

Mr. SHORTT: Under the old law.

Mr. WIGNALL: I think that proves conclusively that there is no need for these Regulations. If the old law is sufficient to arrest these particular men for the speeches they have made and for which they are now awaiting the decision of the Courts, what is the necessity for these Regulations? I would like to refer the Home Secretary, who always answers us in a kind and genial way, to the footnote at the bottom of Regulation 19 which says:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this Regulation by reason only of his taking part in a strike, or peacefully persuading any other person to take part in a strike.
That is a very important foot-note, and it seems to have been overlooked. As we are dealing with a condition of affairs arising out of a lock-out in the mining industry, and these people have been arrested and sent to prison if they have been carrying out the provisions of the law, then it is a very serious matter. Every police constable does not know the law sufficiently to qualify him to say in a matter of this kind whether he is right or wrong. I am not speaking desparagingly of the police and I have every consideration for them, and I have no right to find fault with them; but I am only pointing out what is a common fact, and I would like to know if a policeman was put to the test how many constables know the exact provisions of these Regulations and how many of them know that the words I have read are contained in those Regulations. I would like to put every Member of the House of Commons to the test on this point, and ask if they have read these Regulations and know them sufficiently well to act according on them.
Only a week or two ago, while a strike was proceeding in London, a number of men were following out the very provision of this Regulation that gave them the right of peaceful persuasion in regard to persons taking part in a strike. In other words, they were picketting and doing exactly what the Regulation says they have a right to do, but the police ordered them away. They refused to go, and they were threatened with arrest and were informed that they would be prosecuted under the Regulations. I was
communicated with over the telephone, and I read out those words to them, and I heard nothing more about it. Look at the inconvenience people are put to by being hustled by the police and threatened with prosecution and with the danger of being arrested and being put into the cells for a night or two until the police find out whether they are right or wrong. This Regulation is wrong in itself. I do not suppose we are going to have another surprise vote like we had last night, but I think it is our duty to protest against this Regulation.
In conclusion, I want to say that the country as a whole to-day is faced with the terrible conditions prevailing in the coal industry and with the almost certainty that we are not within any measurable distance of a settlement. We know that every day is adding to the distress of the nation. When one goes about among his constituents you cannot fail to be struck with the remarkable quietude which exists and the remarkable desire of the community to conduct this dispute in a sane and sensible way, and not resort to violence. We know perfectly well in the rank and file of the trade union movement that trade disputes are not won by violence. They never have been and never will be. What they win by is the stern solidarity of the men and the conviction that they are right and fighting for the right to live, and that gives them the power to hold on.
I know there may be a desire to wait and see if starvation will accomplish its work, but I am positive that there is no need for these stringent Regulations when the men themselves are the greatest safeguard of the nation and the preservers of the peace. I represent a constituency composed of a large number of miners and a large mining interest. I have visited my constituency recently and addressed meetings there. I have gone through the mining area from end to end and I have seen nothing but a peaceful desire to conduct this dispute to a finish as sane and sensible men, but with a firm determination to resist the desire to compel them to work for less than a livng wage. Therefore I say that those people who denounced the miners' leaders as being responsible for this dispute and for these Regulations know nothing about the
matter. I hope the Home Secretary will withdraw these Regulations because the emergency does not exist. It might have existed a month or six weeks ago, but it does not exist to-day. Therefore these is no justification for continuing these Regulations.

Mr. G. BARNES: I wish to appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw this particular Regulation. The reasons for doing so have been very well put before the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), but there is one point that has not been sufficiently emphasised and that is the quiet and peaceful character of the circumstances now as compared with those which brought them into existence. I was not here when these Regulations, were brought in at first, but I understand that the country was passing through a phase of extreme feverishness, and there was some fear that there would be rioting, and bloodshed, and that therefore exceptional measures were necessary to meet a special occasion. I understand that was the reason given for passing these emergency measures.
It so happens that I have been down in the mining areas on two occasions within the last few weeks, and I have seen there no indications that there is any need for emergency Regulations of this kind at all. I have talked to the miners, and I have found them perfectly peacefully disposed, and so far as I have heard no such condition of things exists as was feared a couple of months ago which was then the chief reason given for bringing in these emergency Regulations. I have listened with great attention to the Home Secretary, and he did not seem to me to give any reason at all for the continuance of these measures. He told us that all these prosecutions in South Wales had been taken under these Regulations.

Mr. SHORTT: Not all of them. Some were taken under the ordinary law.

Mr. BARNES: The impression created in my mind by what was said just now was that the whole of them came under that category.

Mr. SHORTT: No.

Mr. BARNES: At any rate the hon. Member opposite said there had been a good many prosecutions in South Wales, and that statement elucidated from the Home Secretary the assertion that all
those prosecutions were made under the ordinary law. Then he proceeded to tell us that in Durham also under the ordinary law there had been visits by the police with respect to an attempt at arson, and it was then found that the police had powers to make certain inquiries at the addresses of certain persons and that that could be done under the ordinary law. If that be so, what more is required? It seems to me that that is pretty well all that the Home Secretary needs to meet the conditions existing to-day, because as a matter of fact the mining areas are now as peaceful as in normal times. Just a word about the character of the Regulations. The hon. Member who last spoke appeared to think that this proviso at the end of the Regulations very much limits the application of the Clause as a whole. I do not read that into it. To my mind, and apparently in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting, the Clause gives very considerable and very dangerous powers to the police of this country to take action in the event of attempts being made to cause sedition or disaffection. I need not read the whole phraseology of the Clause, but it is to apply to cases of anyone who is doing anything calculated to cause disaffection among the civilian population. The hon. Member suggests that by the proviso it will only apply to troubles in the industrial field.

Mr. WIGNALL: I was trying to point out that under it, in the case of industrial disputes, the police are empowered to exercise authority which will put men to a considerable amount of inconvenience and trouble and even expense.

Mr. BARNES: Of course, that is a very important limitation, so far as industrial matters are concerned, but only so far as that. But Clause 19 might apply to a person saying something in regard to the economic conditions of society. It might apply to the case of a person who advocates Socialism. To my mind, the Sub-clause does not limit the application of the Clause. I submit it is foolish to bring in Regulations of this kind if there is no intention of enforcing them. I live close to Brock-well Park. I frequently go and hear the speeches made there, and I sometimes hear speeches every sentence of which would bring the persons making them
within the province of this Proclamation. This is simply bringing the law into contempt, and I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter, and, having regard to the peaceful character of this dispute, having regard, also, to the fact that now is the psychological moment when even a gesture of the right kind from the Government might have the very best results, I press him not to refuse to consider the withdrawal of the Regulation.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Listening to the Debate, one is struck by the fact that nearly all hon. Members who have spoken against the continuance of this Regulation have failed to bring forward any ground of complaint or suggestion that it is causing any hardship whatsoever. It is obvious to anyone who reads the Regulations that they do not hurt any well-advised or loyal citizen in this country. No such person has anything to fear from them, and to my mind it would be just as reasonable to expect a man threatened by assassination not to arm himself for his own protection, as to expect a Government which might under certain circumstances be threatened with a very strong revolutionary campaign to neglect to furnish itself with a weapon such as these Regulations. The greater part of the Regulations are concerned with matters which any Government worthy of the name, faced by a situation such as threatened this country a few weeks ago, would be obliged to take special powers to deal with. I suppose that out of 34 of the Regulations, no fewer than 20 deal with matters of administration, for which the Government are bound to take special powers, namely, the distribution of food, water, light, and other services of the nation. This Regulation, No. 19, to which exception is being taken, really is only a strengthening of the law, and it gives the Government complete power to deal quickly with any persons who are really intending to upset law and order and to destroy the peaceful life of the nation. No one, unless they were persons who wished to destroy the life of the nation and to bring about revolution in this country, would therefore object to these powers being in the hands of the Government. The Home Secretary has told us he would be glad, should anyone bring any proof that hardship had been caused to an innocent person by any of the Regula-
tions, to inquire into the matter. I fail to see, therefore, what complaint there can possibly be at the Government having these powers.
In the United States when they had a coal strike last year that strike was declared to be illegal and as a result numerous prosecutions took place. Some of the leaders were arrested. That did not end the strike, but the miners did go back to work eventually because the strike was declared to be illegal and against the constitution of the United States, and also because in some parts of the country men went down into the pits and raised coal, a task which miners said they could not accomplish. No one wants to say an unnecessary word with regard to the coal strike. Everyone hopes that some means will be found for getting over our difficulties in that respect. But the Government is faced with this situation, that the strike has been going on now for just over two months, more and more people are being thrown out of work, and as they become poorer and find life harder it is possible there may be disturbances in some parts of the country. Therefore any Government, and even a Labour Government, were one in power, would be obliged to be armed with sufficient powers to deal with a situation like that. It is true to say, as was stated by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) and also, I believe, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes), that the common-sense of the country is keeping the country peaceful during this long dispute. Of course the Government of this country must depend on the wonderful common-sense of the people principally to prevent any disaster such as a revoluntionary outbreak. But that does not in the least mean that people who are guilty of endeavouring to set fire to inflammable material in this country, and who desire to start such a terrible calamity as a revolution, should not be dealt with under exceptional powers.
We have been told that there have already been over sixty prosecutions under these Regulations, but that only four people have been acquitted. That shows the necessity for continuing these Regulations. We do not want our country torn to pieces like Russia has been. I am certain the vast majority of the people of this country have no
objection at all to the Regulations, but do expect the Government to take the necessary powers to deal quickly and firmly with any attempt to attack the constitution of the country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: To attack anyone they do not like.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I think if the hon. and gallant Member could produce a single case where the Government have attacked people simply for their political views and not because they have committed crime against the nation, his argument would be stronger, but I am not aware that the Government have taken any steps against any such person. Speaking as a politician with somewhat extreme political views, I should like to have seen a great many more people prosecuted by the Government than has been the case. In my opinion, the Government have gone too slow. They may have acted wisely in not arresting and prosecuting more people, but they would undoubtedly have been compelled to do that had there been a worse feeling in the country than has been exhibited. I hope the Government will continue these Regulations, and will not be in the least affected by what I may call the weak criticisms directed against them.

Major HAYWARD: I can only add my voice to the appeal which has been made for the withdrawal of Regulation No. 19, and in doing so I adopt the general views already expressed by hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment without, however, repeating them. The Home Secretary, a few moments ago, told us that most of the prosecutions which have taken place have taken place under the ordinary law. Some, however, have been taken under this particular Regulation, and were the right hon. Gentleman in his place I would like him to tell the House whether any prosecutions which have taken place under this Regulation could not, as a matter of fact, have been taken under the ordinary law. The hon. and gallant Member who last spoke said that no well-disposed person could have any legitimate cause for complaint against Regulation No. 19. Is he quite sure about that? There is one part of that Regulation which is so wide and so vague in its terms that it deviates from what I believe to be a first principle of the Criminal Law, namely, that any act which is intended to be a crime should be so
defined that every subject shall know exactly whether any act which he is performing is or is not a crime. According to the wording of this Regulation, if any person "attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause" disaffection among the civil population, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Regulation. I should like the Home Secretary to tell us exactly what that means. What are acts which are likely to cause disaffection among the civil population? It depends entirely upon the interpretation given by the justice or the judge who hears charges under the Regulations, and it would seem that practically anything could be brought within the four corners of this Regulation. So wide and vague are its terms that it becomes a positive danger, and puts into the hands of the Executive, or of the judiciary, powers wider than any executive or judiciary ought to have. I hope that, following the general appeal which has been made to them, the Government will see their way to withdraw this Regulation, particularly as they already have, under the general law, all the powers which any Government or any executive could possibly require for dealing with any occasion which might arise.

Mr. SWAN: In supporting this Amendment, I should like to say that I am opposed to all the Regulations with the exception of Regulation 13. We never visualised any circumstances in which such Regulations should be introduced when we were considering them last October. At that time, when the Home Secretary introduced them, we prophesied that, instead of their tending towards amicable settlements, there was always the possibility that their existence would make certain obdurate employers still more obdurate, and was likely to create industrial stagnation in this country. We believe that in a very large measure the great mining crisis was brought about by the apprehension that these Regulations would be brought into effect. When the Act was passed which made these Regulations possible, we could see that it was possible for certain advice to be tendered to employers, and that, with the operation of these Regulations behind them, instead of their conceding, whether to the miners or any other section of the community, reasoned proposals and claims which were justified, they could turn them down, conscious that they could simply turn away from those who were negotiating on
behalf of Labour, lock the door in their face, and then not concede their claim, because if after the failure of the negotiations anyone came out into the open and said that there was only one alternative, namely, to pursue a certain course of direct action, they would at once come within the ambit of these Regulations and would be silenced.
We considered that, consciously or unconsciously, these Regulations were intended to crush the liberty-loving instincts of the working people of this country. As I mentioned to the Home Secretary when they were being introduced, there was a strange disposition in this House to forget the contradictory meaning of the words as they applied to working people and as they applied to employers. Working men might have a grievance, and their chosen representatives might present their case, but, having had their case turned down, what do they find under these Regulations? They find the Press noticing their remarks, and other influential people observing their remarks, with the result that they might find themselves in prison or severely badgered. On the other hand, is there or has there been any intention on the part of the Government, should the nation be brought to a crisis by the deliberate obduracy of employers, to inquire into that aspect of the case, and put these people in prison? These Regulations are only intended to apply to one section, that is to say, the working people. However they may be put into operation, we do not believe that it will change the course of any fundamental dispute in this country. Anyone who understands the psychology, whether of the miners or of working people generally, knows that in the mass they will not be coerced or have their liberty-loving instincts suppressed by any regulation. To what depth of human degradation should we as miners have sunk had we not continued, effort upon effort, struggle upon struggle, vindicating our claim for more leisure and for better wages? Those struggles have continued in the past, not because the case of the miners, or any other section of the working community, was unreasonable, but because they found themselves either locked out or goaded into striking by the unreasonable action of sections of employers.
The Home Secretary possesses considerable experience of negotiations with my friends on these benches. We have sat with him for years dealing with industrial disputes. In the event of the miners' dispute being settled, and another dispute arising, we might again be negotiating upon certain claims under well-defined regulations agreed upon by employers and employed, and we might again have as chairman such a man as we used to have in the Home Secretary. But the employers, knowing the powers that they have under the Emergency Powers Act, and the Regulations which might be put in operation, instead of conceding the claims made under well-defined regulations governing the conduct of two associations, might say: "Oh, no, we are not going to concede this on account of economic conditions and so on." If the men return home, and report that, without regard to the procedure of the joint committees, the employers have rejected the decision of the Chairman of the Joint Committee, the employers can say that anyone criticising their proposals is menacing the production of coal or preventing the supply or distribution of light, heat or food, and consequently will come under these Regulations, because he has said to his men that he has failed to get justice or failed to get the employers to carry out the regulations of the Joint Committee. Owing to some such violation of the procedure, the men's representatives may have to return and report to their lodge that there is only one alternative left, and that is for the particular section in question to test the other power which they have. I do not say it is wise, but they will have been absolutely goaded into a stoppage. These men, when they have advised their men to strike, can, under Regulation 19, be imprisoned for three months and fined £100 as well.
Such Regulations as these can be nothing but a menace, and cannot be for the good of the community or lead to amicable negotiations between any sections of workers and employers. The longer it is possible for these Regulations to be put in operation, the more will the workers come to the conclusion, and with substantial reason, that the dice are loaded against them on every occasion. The Government are not going to take the evidence, whether of the miners or
the owners, and adjudicate on reason. These Regulations afford abundant proof that they are taking the arbitrary and partial side of the employers. We, who have practically come from the depths, know the struggles we have had. Not a decade has passed without our having repeatedly asserted our claims for better wages, and on many occasions our people have suffered through poverty and through oppression by the other section. Although that has occurred, and although it may occur under these Regulations, we shall not be convinced, even by force, that the cause for which we are suffering and making sacrifices is not just. Might will continue to rule over right, but in the end our claims will be recognised, if not by this Government then by a Government which will yet be put into power. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of these Regulations will see from experience the wisdom of dealing with this matter and the absolute futility of such a Regulation, which simply embarrasses negotiations, leads to mistrust amongst all sections of the industrial community, and adds to the cost to which the nation is being put. One of the Regulations, we believe, might wisely have been put into operation, if the Government had been anxious to adjudicate, to come to the rescue of the nation and to save it from bankruptcy and industrial paralysis. Under Regulation 13 they would have had the power to settle this great dispute. That Regulation has been skipped over and left in oblivion, as though it could serve no useful purpose. When we criticised the Act we asked what the Regulations were intended for. The Prime Minister said that the object of the Act and of the Regulations was to maintain industrial peace and tranquillity throughout the realm, so that it would be impossible for one section of the community to be without fuel or food while another section had abundance.
7.0 P.M.
Instead of the Government seeking to utilise Regulation 13 in order to bring about that desired end, the Home Secretary, with the collusion of the Prime Minister and the Government, failed to recognise all the existing inequalities and needs, which are so varied and widespread throughout the country, and did not put it into operation. We know that large numbers of people in the country are in want of fuel, yet there are stocks
of fuel at the disposal of the Government. They should have supplied the needs of that section of the community which is still in want of fuel from that stock, instead of which the only people who have Been in a position to get a share of that fuel have been those with a surplus income who could buy it. That is the very antithesis of the object of these Regulations. The Regulations were intended to bridge over all such inequalities, and I will quote what the Prime Minsiter said when they were introduced. He gave an example to justify the Act and the Regulations. He said that supposing in the West End of London there was abundance of coal, while the people in the East End had no coal in their cellars, then they would see that the people in the West End were compelled to disgorge and share their abundance with those in the East End. I would ask the Home Secretary if there has ever been a case where that Regulation has been put into operation to carry out the desired object?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going rather far from the point. We are now considering an Amendment to delete Regulation 19.

Mr. SWAN: The deletion of Regulation 19 would leave the other Regulations in force. We are desirous that Regulation 13 should still be in operation. Instead of its being a stillborn Regulation, it ought to be put into force. That is why we are leaving it in and are not seeking to delete it. Evidently, by the silence of the Home Secretary, that Regulation has not been put into operation, and apparently there is no desire to do so.

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend must not take it by my silence that it has not been put into force. I must require notice of that question.

Mr. SWAN: The right hon. Gentleman desires to have notice, but he has been in charge of these Regulations.

Mr. SHORTT: Not of that one.

Mr. SWAN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was Regulation 19. We should like to have seen Regulation 13 put into force to bridge over the existing inequalities; it would have been very useful. Apparently there is no intention to do so. So far as the mining dispute is concerned, if the Government had not been anxious to take sides, then,
with these Regulations, they could have inquired into the case of the miners and the case of the mineowners before they came to a stoppage. The Prime Minister could have stepped in, under that Regulation, and avoided a stoppage by maintaining control and taking over the whole of the coal mines. Control could have been continued, just as it existed up to the end of March, until the miners and the coalowners had been enabled to hammer out a working agreement to their joint satisfaction. That would have been more judicious than allowing this great stoppage to take place which is causing such a paralysis in industry. We believe, however, that, instead of using those powers, the Prime Minister has deliberately taken sides, and we think the same about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Instead of dealing with the matter in a broad sense, they have simply looked at it from the standpoint of a privileged section of the community.
We hope that, instead of letting the nation go on into bankruptcy, the Government will try to find a way out of this impasse by using this Regulation. If the miners and the coalowners fail to come to an agreement, then let the Prime Minister work the whole of the mines again, under the fixed Regulations which were in operation before the end of March. Certain right hon. and hon. Members say that that cannot be done. Under these Regulations the men can work the mines and eliminate those factors that have been very oppressive and have handicapped this country in its competition with other nations in the markets of the world. I hope, at least, that Section 19 will be deleted, and that our men will not be unfairly embarrassed by such Regulations. As in the past, we intend to assert our claims for more leisure and better wages to enable our children and our people to obtain food, clothing, and shelter compatible with decent citizenship. Just as in the past we may again be starved into submission through poverty and oppression. If that is the case the battle will go on on some future occasion, until the miners and all other sections of the community are working under conditions where these embarrassing restrictions are removed. They they will live in a land where the miners will be honoured, not because of their status, but because of the services they render to the community as decent citizens.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think this opportunity should be taken by at least one other hon. Member of my party to say a word against attacks on free speech. I rather regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) moved to leave out the whole of Regulation 19. I am sorry that instead of that he did not move to leave out the words
Any person who attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition or disaffection among any of His Majesty's forces, or among the members of any police force, or any fire brigade, or among the civilian population.
To attempt to stir up sedition or disaffection amongst the forces is a crime which I do not think any of my hon. Friends on these Benches wish to defend at all. It is, however, because we object to the very wide terms of the sentence I have read out that we are making this protest. If my hon. Friends go to a Division I shall certainly support them, though I would not want any hon. Member to think that that means that I support the stirring up of sedition or mutiny amongst the forces of the Crown. That is the last thing I wish to see. There have been prosecutions—some sixty-one—as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said. In the South Wales the prosecutions were taken under an old Statute of 1893.

Mr. SHORTT: Some of them.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many prosecutions have really been taken under Regulation 19? How many sentences have been imposed and how many acquittals have taken place? There are some cases awaiting trial on which I do not wish to comment. I saw a case in the Press about a man at Portsmouth—I take it that that was under Regulation 19, because he was accused of stirring up trouble in the Navy.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the sort of thing that is going on at the present moment. Have we heard anything this afternoon about the great German-Russian-International-Jewish plot to disrupt the British Empire? I understand that in the secret archives of Scotland Yard, in the Special Division, there is evidence showing the ramifications of this vast conspiracy; how it is behind this strike, and behind dis-
affection, and so on. We have heard remarkably little about it this afternoon. The Duke of Northumberland, in another place, and his friends in this House, are very fond of enlarging on this international conspiracy to disrupt and ruin the British Empire. Apparently it is behind our troubles everywhere, and is also behind the present stoppage. Let me read out the names of some of these German, Russian, or International Jewish people who are being prosecuted. The first I light on are Samuel Smith and Thomas Mitchell—observe the Russian-Jewish names of these people—charged at Glasgow with publishing in the "Socialist" of 14th April an article entitled "Under which Flag?" They have been remanded in gaol. Thomas Dingley. If these people had been Russian, German, or International Jews; if it had been Rosenberg or any name of that sort, we should have heard all about it in the papers, because the right hon. Gentleman's publicity service would have seen to that. John Henry Binnie, John Meehan, Thomas Rawlinson, Agnes O'Hagan. I admit that is an Irish name. Those three were charged with the distribution of leaflets calculated to cause sedition. They were bound over. Bob Stewart. He is the national organiser of the Communist party, and was sentenced to three months' hard labour on 12th May for making statements calculated to cause sedition. I remember that case in the papers, and I read it with great care, and witness after witness was brought up at the trial to prove that he had made speeches little different from those of the local orators, but apparently the fact that he bore the name of Stewart, and I suppose spoke with a Scottish accent, directed suspicion to him, and he was haled before the magistrate. So it goes on. Wilson, Lecky, Parkes, Wilson again, Whitehead, James Brown, Jefferson, William Thomas Brown, John Trotter, Henry Pollock. Listen to the Russians, the Germans, and the International Jews. There has been a gentleman named Veldtheim, but I believe he was born in Glasgow, and is a very good Scotsman. These sentences—and there are many of them—are getting more and more severe.
Sentences are being given now of hard labour and very heavy fines, and I sub-
mit that the Home Secretary is not exactly accurate when he informs us that these men are not prosecuted for their opinions. I really think they are. The actual charge is based on some leaflet or some remark made in the speech, but what the magistrate is told by the police, and what weighs with the Bench—I am not attacking the Bench—is that these men are Communists. It is sufficient to say if a man is arrested and brought before the authorities that he is a Communist, to get a very stiff sentence. The Home Secretary has told us that the Chief Constables of the various areas will undoubtedly pay attention, as, of course, they will, to representations made by him in case they are exceeding their duty. I, therefore, maintain that the whole policy, for it is a policy, of prosecuting the Communist party is inspired from headquarters. Hon. Members say: "And quite right, too. Lock them all up." If that policy is really advocated to-day, England has lost one of its most attractive qualities. The persecuting of men for their opinions—because that is what the prosecution of Communists comes to—is a thing that the Englishman has always set his face against in the past. We have been the refuge of the persecuted of all lands. The Russian Anarchist, the German Socialist, the Italian Anarchist, all these men have been able to come here and enjoy immunity and that very fact has raised our credit abroad tremendously. During all the bomb outrages in the 'seventies and 'eighties of last century, there was practically none of it here, and the very fact that we have been so long known as the land of the free undoubtedly helped us in the Great War. It helped us psychologically. It turned public opinion in countries that wavered as to whether to come in, especially in the case of Italy, on our side. That is being abandoned to-day. Hon. Members think it is a good thing. They believe in this International, Russian, German, Jewish plot to disrupt the British Empire, and think it is behind all our troubles. My answer to that is, that the right hon. Gentleman himself said the danger was in speaking to angry, hungry men. Free speech was all right when everyone was comfortable and well fed.

Mr. SHORTT: I did not say anything of the sort. I said nothing about free speech being right or wrong at any time.
I said, preaching violence was very harmless when you are talking to contented people in Hyde Park, but was very dangerous when you were preaching violence. It has nothing to do with free speech.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is exactly it. The Home Office doctrine is that free speech is all very well in a contented country.

Mr. SHORTT: I did not say anything of the sort.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Incitements to violence are all right in a contented country because they do no harm, but when men are sullen, discontented and hungry they are a danger. Of course, that is the key to the whole thing. Do not let the people become discontented, seditious and mutinous, and then you can allow the street corner orator to talk as much as he likes and advocate the most violent doctrines and the most violent methods of accomplishing them and nothing happens. I appreciate very much the words of sympathy of the hon. Member Mr. (Jameson) with the hon. Member (Mr. Malone), who is in prison for making a speech. I am sorry the hon. Member is not here, as I should like to thank him. He said the working men pay no attention to street corner orators preaching revolution because they have too much common sense. Of course they have, and that has been our safeguard in the past. If certain changes have to come in our society they will come by certain processes in nature, and the more you try to repress them the greater will be the violence of the explosion when it arrives.
The whole history of the last 130 years surely shows us that. The countries which have suppressed these liberties of speaking and writing and publishing, which are now attacked by the Government, have suffered in direct proportion to the amount of the repression. In Germany, Austria, France 100 years ago, it was because these things were repressed that the explosion took place, and the greater the repression the greater the force of the explosion. Cordite burns in the open air harmlessly. Gunpowder explodes with little force unless it is confined. But certain movements amongst men, if they are suppressed, become explosive, and disrupt the bodies that are trying to keep them down. Because I believe that in the past
the policy of allowing people to blow off steam and have their say has worked well as a safety valve and has brought great good to our people, I make this protest against the senseless, vindictive prosecutions of Communists. I do not agree with the greater part of their ideas. I have always condemned their advocacy of violent revolution, and I hold no brief for them whatever. But it is because they believe in what they say that it is all the more dangerous to try to suppress them for holding certain views. I feel the Government is making a great mistake. If I were a revolutionary Communist, I should support the present Government through thick and thin. I should take the standpoint of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) in regard to more prosecutions. I should support this Regulation and support the Government action abroad in doing harm to this country, from the Machiavellian standpoint that it would bring about disruption quicker than anything else.

Lord R. CECIL: I should not rise except that I am anxious to say a word in support of the appeal which I understand the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) made to the Government to reconsider their policy in this matter, and ask themselves very seriously whether it is really necessary to go on with these Regulations, and particularly the one under consideration. There is no doubt Regulation 19, as I am sure the Home Secretary would admit, in its terms goes very far. In its most extreme form it comes to this, that if any person attempts to cause disaffection among the civilian population he is liable to a penalty. Those are very wide words, and would include almost any conceivable prosecution, for any speech which was at all hostile to the Government of the day might be held to be causing or attempting to cause disaffection amongst the civilian population. I quite agree with what I understand the Home Secretary says, that he makes a great distinction, and, of course, we all do, between a speech delivered to a contented and peaceful audience and one delivered to an audience which is very much the reverse. I quite agree that it is very necessary that you should have a somewhat different standard in dealing with speeches inciting to violence if they are made in an explosive atmosphere.
But this Regulation really can go further than that, and it is not only a theoretical danger, because undoubtedly the two leaflets which were produced by the hon. Member (Mr. Maclean) do not incite to violence. I have read them. They consist of a very urgent appeal to the transport and railway workers to come out on strike. They include a fierce denunciation, but not one that incites to violence, of the Government and of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on these Benches, the moderate leaders of the trade union movement, who are held up to obliquy as traitors, and from beginning to end, particularly of the one called "A Call to Action," there is no phrase, as far as I can see, which can be twisted into an incitement to violence. I understand that the distribution of that leaflet has been made the subject of a prosecution on the part of the authorities. That looks as if there was something to be said for the view that these Regulations are in certain cases, at any rate, being pressed rather far.
That is not the point, really. I do not suggest that there is any real concerted attempt at repression. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I do not believe the Government are using these Regulations to suppress Communism or anything of that sort, any more than I believe in the least in the story of a gigantic, secret conspiracy, financed by foreign money, which is going to upset the British Constitution. There may be such a conspiracy financed by foreign money, but I am certain it will not succeed in upsetting the British constitution. I want to press this on the Government. Here is a moment when we really want to bring peace in the industrial world. Is there really any case now for maintaining these Regulations? Is it really necessary to maintain them, and particularly this one, in the interest of law and order? Does the Government seriously think that there would be danger of crime—that is the real point—if this Regulation was dropped? I cannot think that the Government really believe that. If not, is not this the very moment to show that all the charges against the Government that they are not impartial in the matter, that they have prejudices against the workers—charges "which have been made so freely out of doors—are without foundation? By
accepting this Amendment and dropping this Regulations they could give definite, practical proof that they really do desire conciliation and peace, and that they are anxious to bring the industrial troubles to an end. I hope the Government will very seriously consider the appeal which I have made.

Mr. LAWSON: When these Regulations were asked for I wondered whether the Government were trying to breed trouble. They seemed to be asking for it. I wondered if the Government had got the wind up. When these Regulations were asked for, the conditions did not justify the Government asking the House to grant such sweeping Regulations and to put such power into the hands of a Department. I have come to the conclusion that the Regulations have been asked for because the Government have the wind up, and the fact that they are insisting upon the maintenance of the Regulations is further proof of that statement. The Government has certain powers behind it and certain powers outside the House who hold, as the Government has consistently held, that there is a great revolutionary force working underground in this country which is the cause of industrial unrest and so forth. One hon. Member this afternoon actually said that the people themselves were all right, but that well-trained speakers were speaking to half-baked, ignorant miners. I have heard statements in this House recently couched in strong language of that kind, and I am going to use equally strong language. I wish the hon. Member had been here so that he might know what I am going to say. I hope that what I say will be conveyed to him. A statement of that kind does not show very much intelligence on the part of that hon. Member, for anyone who knows the situation at the present time and who has seen the miner, from the humblest type downwards, in active work during the past two months, must agree that his power of organisation, his power of self-control, and his general standard of citizenship has reached the highest that we could expect of British citizens, and I think that statements of the kind referred to, when they go abroad, do not do any good and are unworthy of those who make them.
Something ought to be said about this so-called under-current of revolutionary organisation. The average British citizen, whether a miner or otherwise, does not
take any account of revolutionaries or revolutionary organisations, because he knows that the revolutionary usually is a person who expects other people to do the revoluting. Organisation and people who take that point of view and try to stir up into a frenzy are on a par with these Regulations. The point of view expressed in these Regulations is an insult to the intelligence of the average British citizen. I can see the converging of certain forces of the type of mind behind these Regulations. The Prime Minister goes down to Maidstone and seeks to justify this kind of spirit. Then there is a meeting in the House of Commons in an upper room where there was a considerable amount of fervour shown. There was a sort of chosen leader and apostle to tell the meeting all about this great revolutionary organisation, and we were all swept into the same net. Wholesale statements have been made about miners' officials, miners' Members and the miners themselves. I happened to be in the north when that statement was made and published, and I will tell the Noble Duke what the average miner said. He said, "Him and his Bolshevik organisation. What he is troubled about is that his royalty rents are not coming in regularly." I am afraid that they are not very far off the truth when they make a statement of that kind.
These Regulations reflect the type of mind of persons and organisations who are converging in order to make up a wholesale attack, not only upon the rights of British citizenship, but upon British liberty, for definite political purposes. That is the only conclusion to which I can come after reading Regulations of this kind, especially when they have been in operation for two months, during which time our people have shown conduct worthy of the highest and best standard of British citizenship. I live in the same district and in the same house in which I lived when I was working in the pit, and I go home every week-end. During the Whitsuntide Recess I took the opportunity of going to feeding centres and various places of activity, and when I come back to London, and especially when I sit here, it is like emigrating to another country. Coming from a northern mining area to this House and to London is like coming to a foreign land. It is wholly foreign. It is out of touch absolutely with the psychology of
our people. In serious business the miners have shown powers of organisation and ingenuity that have amazed me, as one born and reared in a mining area, and they display the same spirit when they are dealing with the lighter and more humorous side of life. The South has not had a Derby exclusively to itself. When I was in the North I saw a Derby. Forty thousand people were present, and the race was run by ponies that came out of the mine, well-groomed and well cared for. I saw boys riding bare-backed ponies, and I saw some of the regimental sergeant-majors there from the riding schools who would have given something if some of their drivers could ride as those boys rode bare-back. There was good racing and a good spirit. The mine-owners were there with their agents co-operating in the sports. I pay this tribute to the mineowners and their agents, that they have in a large measure helped towards that spirit of comradeship and goodwill, and I believe that if they expressed their views, they are as much amazed as we are at these kind of Regulations, which are totally, unnecessary at the present time and have been all along.
I wonder if it is possible for the Government to get back to the old British spirit of trusting the people, and of relying upon their common sense. It is not true to say that well-conducted people in various parts of the country do not regard these Regulations as a hardship. I come from an area which is fairly moderate, and the average citizens I meet there take these Regulations as a reflection upon themselves. These Regulations are a part of the general jack-boot policy of the Government. I trust that the appeals which have been made to-day will not have been made in vain. Whatever differences of opinion we have upon the point of view of business in the country, economical, political and social, the best thing that can come to this House and to the country is for the Government to make a gesture of generosity and of common sense to the people, and to say that they rest the British Constitution boldly and with daring, with courage and with vision, as it always has rested, upon the common sense and intelligence of the people. They will have greater strength, greater power and greater certainty of the future success of this country and the
Empire if they rely upon the common sense of the country and upon a spirit and attitude of mind like that, far more than if they rely upon all the Regulations and defence armies that can be created.

Captain W. BENN: I should like to ask the Home Secretary if, by the time we come to the main question after the Division on this Amendment, he will be prepared to tell the House what all this is costing. Very elaborate machinery has been set in motion by the Government—military, naval, defence force, and transport—and it is a very costly thing. I will not go into the merits of the question now, but I tell my right hon. Friend that when the main question is reached I shall ask him to give the House some estimate of the amount of money that the taxpayer has to pay under this Act.

Mr. SHORTT: Under these Regulations?

Captain BENN: Yes, under the Act.

Dr. MURRAY: This House ought to be proud of the conduct of millions of work-people in this country who for weeks have been out of work and unable to know where they would find their breakfast the following morning. I do not think there is any country in the world which could present such a noble spectacle as the British working man at the present time. Many of them have been out of work for weeks, and yet there has been hardly a case of disorder from John o'Groats to Lands End. That makes me wonder why the Government should) bring forward Regulations of this sort. What would have happened if these Regulations had been in force 10 years ago? The hon. Member has referred to the Prime Minister having visited Maidstone. He visited Limehouse some years ago. What would have happened to the Prime Minister if these Regulations had been in operation when he went to Limehouse? He was charged at that time by lawyers and others with causing disaffection among the people. If these Regulations had been in force then, the Prime Minister might have been sent to prison, and we should have lost the War. I have read many of these so-called revolutionary leaflets and speeches, and I have read comments on them, but the comments made upon these revolutionary leaflets and speeches were as milk and water compared to the comments that
were made upon the Prime Minister's speeches 10 years ago. The right hon. Member for the City of London is present, and he often criticised the Prime Minister for making speeches of that sort which caused disaffection among the people of the country, and he would have put him in gaol 10 years ago. That would have been a catastrophe. It is possible that some man of equal eminence might make an injudicious speech to-day, and the right hon. Gentleman might clap him into gaol, and he might be the man who was to win the next war. Considering the peaceful character of the population at present, this is really nonsense, and I am surprised that a right hon. Gentleman

of the Liberal traditions of the Home Secretary, who was using almost the same language as the Prime Minister 10 years ago on the same question—of course, with more an eye on the Common Law at the time—knowing the history of his Chief in the present Cabinet, should come forward with Regulations of that sort, under which other people are to be clapped into gaol for causing much less disaffection than the divine discontent which the Prime Minister was charged with exciting 10 years ago.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 180.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
O'Grady, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hallas, Eldred
Royce, William Stapleton


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hayward, Evan
Spencer, George A.


Casey, T. W.
Hirst, G. H.
Spoor, B. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Irving, Dan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
Wintringham, Thomas


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.




T. Shaw.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clough, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gilbert, James Daniel


Armitage, Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Atkey, A. R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Glyn, Major Ralph


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Goff, Sir R. Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gould, James C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cope, Major William
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Greig, Colonel James William


Barnston, Major Harry
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Barrand, A. R.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Dawes, James Arthur
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dean, Commander P. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Higham, Charles Frederick


Blair, Sir Reginald
Elveden, Viscount
Hills, Major John Waller


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Briggs, Harold
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Forrest, Walter
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jameson, John Gordon


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jephcott, A. R.


Butcher, Sir John George
Gardiner, James
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gee, Captain Robert
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Seager, Sir William


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Seddon, J. A.


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Parker, James
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Stewart, Gershom


Lindsay, William Arthur
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Sugden, W. H.


Lorden, John William
Perring, William George
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Taylor, J.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Maddocks, Henry
Pratt, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Prescott, Major W. H.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Purchase, H. G.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Rae, H. Norman
Wallace, J.


Manville, Edward
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Ramsden, G. T.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Renwick, George
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Middlebrook, Sir William
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Morrison, Hugh
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wise, Frederick


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Rodger, A. K.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Neal, Arthur
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.

Main Question again proposed.

Captain W. BENN: I desire to repeat the question, What is this machinery costing the country every week? We know that there are the Reserve Force and the Defence Force and elaborate machinery for the distribution of food, but there is a substantial expenditure every week for these purposes amounting I believe to £1,250,000.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member refer merely to the expenses under these Regulations?

Captain BENN: Many of these expenses are incurred under the Regulations. For example, Regulation 2A, Powers under the Army and Air Force Act, is, I know, on the Supplementary Estimate for the Army and Navy, and with those I do not propose to deal. But there is, I believe, set up under this Act machinery for the distribution of food, etc., and we are entitled to know what is the expenditure by the Government on this machinery which they have provided and which they persist in keeping in operation.

Mr. SHORTT: It is impossible for me to give details.

Captain BENN: I gave notice half an hour ago.

Mr. SHORTT: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to have the faintest notion of what is the expenditure under these Regulations. The Reserve and the Defence Forces have nothing to do with these Regulations.

Captain BENN: There is some expenditure—what is it?

Mr. SHORTT: Then the distribution of food was all arranged long before these Regulations ever came into force. These give us power to do certain things which are necessary, but all the schemes for the distribution of food have been in existence for a long time. There will very shortly be Supplementary Estimates which will give the hon. and gallant Member every opportunity to discuss this matter.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 55.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Barrand, A. R.
Briggs, Harold


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Armitage, Robert
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Atkey, A. R.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Butcher, Sir John George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blair, Sir Reginald
Casey, T. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Clough, Robert


Barnston, Major Harry
Breese, Major Charles E.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Purchase, H. G.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rae, H. Norman


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ramsden, G. T.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Renwick, George


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jameson, John Gordon
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawes, James Arthur
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dean, Commander P. T.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Seager, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seddon, J. A.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Elveden, Viscount
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Farquharson, Major A. C.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Fell, Sir Arthur
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stewart, Gershom


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Maddocks, Henry
Sturrock, J. Leng


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Magnus, Sir Philip
Sugden, W. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Forrest, Walter
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Taylor, J.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Manville, Edward
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gardiner, James
Middlebrook, Sir William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Gee, Captain Robert
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wallace, J.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison, Hugh
Walton, J. (York, W.R., Don Valley)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Neal, Arthur
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Gould, James C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Greig, Colonel James William
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wise, Frederick


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parker, James
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Perkins, Walter Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Higham, Charles Frederick
Perring, William George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Dudley Ward.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pratt, John William



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hallas, Eldred
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Hayward, Evan
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Spoor, B. G.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Irving, Dan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Kenyon, Barnet
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
Lawson, John James
Wintringham, Thomas


Glanville, Harold James
Lunn, William
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, James
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
T. Shaw.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton



Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the re-
organisation and further regulation of railways, and the discharge of liabilities in connection with the possession of railways, and otherwise to amend the law relating to railways, and to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee, it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of a sum of sixty million pounds in satisfaction of claims which might have been made by railway companies in Great Britain for compensation under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of, or in respect of, the possession by the Crown of the undertakings, railroads, or plant of such railway companies, or in the exercise of the powers conferred by those Acts;
(b) of the expenses (including the remuneration, of members and staff) of any tribunals which may be established by the said Act;
(c) of contributions by the Treasury to any pension or superannuation fund of which any officer or servant of a railway company transferred to the Minister of Transport may remain a member, and of allowances for the disturbance of officers and servants;
(d) of the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as the committee is continued in existence by the said Act."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Mr. SPENCER: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "sixty" and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
I understand that the Committee which investigated the claim made by the railway companies against the Government were of opinion, after very careful consideration of the whole of the evidence submitted to them, that the only sums due to the railway companies were very insignificant sums; but for some reason the interpretation put by the Government upon the recommendations of that Committee is a sum of £60,000,000. How the Government have come to give so liberal an interpretation passes the comprehension of some of us who have not the privilege of being in possession of the Government's secrets. The Committee had before them the evidence upon which they based their conclusions, and those conclusions in no sense whatever supported the sum of £60,000,000. If this Resolution is passed there will be no further opportunity of seeking to reduce the amount when the Bill goes before the Committee upstairs or is taken on the floor of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to support the Amendment.
It is extraordinary that the Minister of Transport should not be here to explain this Resolution. I say that without any reflection on my very capable Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Ministry. This Bill was introduced with a tremendous flourish of trumpets, and was to save the country sums ranging from £25,000,000 upwards. I see the Resolution is asking for money. I do not refer to the £60,000,000 to be paid to the railway companies, but to the fact that the expenses include the remuneration of the members and staff of any tribunals established under the Act, and the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as that Committee continues in existence. We are entitled to know how much those expenses are likely to be. Speaking for the part of the country I have the honour to represent, for the merchants and shippers and traders of Hull, I suggest that the appeals to the Rates Advisory Committee and to the tribunals will be frequent and costly, and will entail a great deal of work.
The opposition to the present arrangement is being hardened daily in my constituency. There they anticipate grave disadvantages as a result of the system. Those disadvantages were mentioned by two hon. Members who represent Hull. The statement of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Murchison) was waived on one side by the representatives of the Government, who said that the hon. Member's statements could be dealt with in Committee upstairs. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for East Hull has not been put on the Committee, and therefore will not be able to make his objection heard or to put forward alternative proposals. On the Second Reading the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) also raised objection, but the Minister of Transport made no answer whatsoever, and did not attempt to meet us in any way. I took the opportunity of reminding him, and he said it was a matter that had been dealt with long before I was ever heard of, or words to that effect. If that sort of treatment is a sample of the way the community is to be treated, if that is the spirit which is to animate the tribunals and the working of the railways under this arrangement, then Heaven help the trading community, and Heaven help the Government after the trading community and the general public have had a few months' experience of the working. I desire to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer), and I do most seriously press this matter as
regards the not unimportant city which I represent, and which is the fourth seaport of the world—

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. RAWLINSON: In rising to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, I do so with the object of eliciting information rather than with the intention of throwing out the Bill, as if the Bill was thrown out on the Second Reading the London County Council could not continue its beneficent work in the Metropolis. The London County Council differs from other public bodies in this, that provincial municipalities if they wish to borrow money for any particular purpose or to undertake any large enterprise have to obtain the sanction of the Local Government Board. In the case of provincial municipalities the Local Government Board sends an inspector who holds an inquiry at which all interested parties attend and are heard. That is not the case with the London County Council. The practice in regard to that body is that every year they bring before this House the London County Council [Money] Bill, and the House sanctions the requisitions they make for the purpose of carrying out improvements in the Metropolis or such other works as they may undertake. It throws a great weight of responsibility upon the House to see that this annual expenditure is justified. I have deemed it my duty to raise discussion on many occasions in regard to this Bill not in any spirit of hostility to the London Council, but with the object of meeting that responsibility. In this particular year the demands of the County Council seem to be less open to criticism than they have been in many other years,
but it is none the less the duty of the House to look into the items which it is asked to sanction, and to request information upon any points which may appear to be either excessive or out of the ordinary. If this Bill goes upstairs there is nobody to oppose it unless some ratepayer undertakes that duty, and it rests upon the House alone to elicit information from those who represent the London County Council and whose names are on the back of the Bill. I need not remind hon. Members that one must look carefully into all expenditure at the present time. We heard many speeches on economy yesterday, and I do not propose to retail any of them, but particularly in regard to the question of building, all expenditure which can possibly be postponed should be postponed. I will first point out that, despite the increase in the rateable value of London, the effect of the Bill will be to increase the rates by some 6d. in the £ in round figures. In saying that, I am not hostile to the policy of the County Council, and I have no doubt this increase is necessary, but I mention it as a preface to my remarks, in which I hope to show that it is our duty to study very closely and carefully the figures which are put forward. I have already asked my hon. Friends in charge of the Bill for information on one or two points, and in addition there are other matters which I desire to bring under the attention of the House.
In the first page of the Schedule is a sum of £5,500,000 for carrying out a scheme in connection with the housing of the working classes. That is a considerable commitment for building alone to be carried out in one year, but very likely good reasons will be given for it. Coming after that, and in addition to it, in the second page of the Schedule, we find a large number of items coming under the head of the London County Council Tramways and Improvements Acts. We all know that these are really for the purpose of street improvement. When one notices such items as £21,000, £37,000, £18,000, and £39,000, and other items, one recognises the necessity of care in dealing with them. There is one item under the Tramway and Improvements Act of 1920 in reference to Old Street, Kingsland Road, Cable Street, and Brook Street—the purchase of property and execution of works—which represents a sum of £110,000 for the year. I should
like to know whether some of that might not be usefully deferred to a future period when the cost of building might be less and money might be more plentiful.
A hardy annual in connection with this Bill has been the matter of the London County Council Hall. I have not asked for information about that. I see there is to be something less than £500,000 spent upon it this year, and that possibly may be necessary expenditure in the case of a building which has not got a roof upon it. Therefore I have not troubled about that this year as much as on other occasions. Those who are not acquainted with the history of that hall may, however, desire to know something about it. I would draw attention to the item for the provision of a new Court House for Quarter Sessions, on which it is proposed to spend £14,500. This is bracketed with an item for the improvement of accommodation and equipment for the Stores Department of the Council, purchase of property and redemption of tithe amounting to £16,000. The two together make an item of £30,000. I should like to know a great deal more about these. I presume there is at present a hall wherein the Quarter Sessions have been held for a good many years. Why is it necessary at this particular time to spend this large sum on a new sessions hall? I am the last person to wish to prevent money being spent in connection with the law, but the department of the law with which I am least in sympathy is the erection of new buildings where the old buildings will suffice, and, before we vote money for building here, we should have some reason given why this large sum should be spent.
I have already dealt with the very large sum of money which is asked for tramways and street improvements in dealing with tramways, but the matter does not rest there, because I come now to Item 20—
Acts relating to Tramways: Purchase of tramway undertakings, construction, reconstruction and equipment of tramways, provision of buildings, power stations, machinery and rolling stock, and other purposes,
£1,000,000 for this year and £439,000 for the six months after the end of the year. That one item of £1,000,000, in addition to the other very large sum for street im-
provements in connection with tramways, is a matter upon which I should like further information from the hon. Member representing the County Council. Surely this sum is too large. I should have thought the competition of the motor omnibuses was sufficiently severe to make investments in tramway enterprises somewhat of a speculative nature, and I should be very interested to know whether the existing tramways pay a substantial return on the very large sums of money which have been invested in them year after year with the sanction of this House. I should like to know in what part of London another £1,000,000 is going to be spent, what tramway is proposed to be dealt with, and if it means buying up existing tramways, and, if so, whether the County Council think they are likely to make a better thing of it than the private companies who own the trams at the present time. Having regard to the expense of every sort of material at the present time, could not these new tramways be postponed to some later date? There are two other small points about which I wish to ask the hon. Member.
In Part II of the Bill there is an item of £200,000 for the purchase of lands for street improvements, and, of that, £100,000 is to be spent this year. I have already pointed out to the House that under the so-called tramways improvements nearly £200,000 is being spent in street improvements, and under this Part II there is to be another £100,000 spent. Is it really urgent that these street improvements should be carried out this year? Could they not be postponed to some more suitable time than the present? Surely no more unsuitable time than the present could be found. The last point I am taking is in Part IV of the Bill, which does not directly concern the County Council. The County Council have the power to lend money to Metropolitan borough councils, boards of guardians, and other public bodies, and before they can do that they have to come to this House and ask leave to lend the particular money, that is, to borrow it for the purpose of lending it out. The item which I venture to ask information upon is Item 24, Loans to Metropolitan Borough Councils, £200,000,000, with another £1,000,000 six months after the end of the year, making £3,000,000 within 18 months. It strikes me that that is a big
figure. Does it include in any way money to be borrowed for municipal buildings? There was a matter, which I saw mentioned in the paper, of a town hall at Islington, and I believe the London County Council declined to lend the money for that purpose. If that is so, I think, in fairness to the County Council, I ought to put the question, because it is only right that we should know that this sum of £2,000,000 does not include that item, which I gather to be the case from the fact that the hon. Member representing the County Council nods assent. It is, I think, distinctly to the credit of the County Council that they should have refused to lend money for this purpose. I venture to emphasise the importance of the duty which this House has of scrutinising carefully any money which they allow to be borrowed at the present time, because the more money is borrowed, and the more the rates are put up in London, the more it affects every person in the community, not only the ratepayers, but others who really do not pay rates. I think it only right that we should have a satisfactory explanation before we vote on this Bill, and unless I get a satisfactory explanation I shall record my vote against the Bill. We ought to have a primâ facie case made out before we sanction the large expenditure foreshadowed by this Bill.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I merely approach this Bill from the point of view of the man-in-the-street who knows very little about it, but merely looks at the figures, and when he turns to the end of the paper and sees that it amounts to a sum of £16,000,000 is at once appalled, and a cold shiver goes down his spine at the thought of having to pay a little more in the way of rates. There never was a time when it was so important and so essential that the House should go with the utmost possible care through these Bills, involving expenditure of large sums of money, with the idea of seeing whether we cannot possible save something. I am old enough to remember the time when it would put a feather in the cap of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could save on the National Budget of the year or reduce the expenditure for the year by £1,000,000 or £2,000,000. The period to which I refer was only about 10 or 11 years ago, and I wish I knew something about municipal affairs, especially London municipal affairs, in those days, so as to
know whether the Estimates were scrutinised with the same care. I take it they were, but I do think a sum of £16,000,000—of course, it is a great City of which we are all proud—is an enormous figure, and I cannot help thinking the House might well be repaid for careful scrutiny of such a figure. It might be that items have crept into this Estimate which certainly would not have been here but for the probability that some candidate or other at the County Council election depended for his municipal existence upon some item. It may be I am in error in thinking so, but that is why I want to go through this with the greatest possible care.
I come to the first item—Provision of stations and plant for the London Fire-Brigade. I would like to ask the hon. Members in charge of the Bill if they can tell us exactly what is proposed to be done here. I believe there is a proposal—I have seen it in the Press—to centralise a large number of fire stations in the West End, and to close other stations. I am not clear whether this item is really for the building of new stations, or whether it is for the adaptation of existing premises. If the closing of certain other stations is involved, I should like to know upon what terms those stations are being closed, and whether the County Council are getting real value for the money; that is to say, supposing the stations are closed, what is being done with the property? As the hon. and learned Member who preceded me has pointed out, there was never a more un-desirable time to launch forward in a policy of bricks and mortar. It costs the country more to do this now than it probably will in a year or two, and there is always the point of view of the man-in-the-street, which I conceive to be that, as we have gone along pretty well as we are, could we not get along for another two years? If the new stations are really necessary, and London expands in all directions and new housing schemes take effect, I have no doubt new stations will be necessary, but there is this rumour about fire stations, particularly in the West End, being centralised, and I would like to know a little more about that particular item of the policy of the London County Council in connection with the Fire Brigade.
I turn to the items in connection with
the trams. I know that the tramways are one of the most thorny subjects to which one can possibly allude in London municipal affairs. It has always seemed to me, as a humble student in these matters, that in London municipal affairs you either have to be for trams or against trams, and we have always been faced with the proposition that enormous sums have undoubtedly been sunk in tramways by the London County Council. Of course, when the London County Council first began to spend money on trams, I suppose they were the most up-to-date and efficient municipal locomotion that could be devised. But since tramways were first installed in London, undoubtedly we have witnessed a turn of the wheel of progress, and we have come to something which is certainly considered, so far as traffic is concerned, more adaptable, and that is, of course, the development of motor omnibuses and motor traction. It seems to me that if the London County Council go in for spending large sums of money at this stage upon trams, they may be possibly pursuing a policy of throwing good money after bad. I think they were perfectly right in spending money on trams originally, but nowadays, with the system of locomotion changing, I am disposed to look with a very critical eye upon a proposal to spend more money upon the tramway system. There are six items in the Schedule of this Bill involving a further expenditure altogether of £243,000 by the 31st March, 1922, upon various street widenings, purchase of property, execution of works, and so forth. That is very nearly £250,000. It is true these street widenings may really be very great improvements from the point of view of traffic generally. They may possibly take other forms of traffic than the trams. The trams, of course, are saddled with the responsibility of keeping up the tracks, amongst other things, and I know that tramway advocates always say it is very unfair that the trams should have to keep the track going between the rails, whereas the omnibuses have no responsibility of this sort. I quite agree; and also that the omnibus, which does not require such provision—call it what you like—and is able to use the public highway in any shape or form, is a much more adaptable and elastic form of traffic. I may possibly be the representative of what
people may call "the new school." I believe in motor traction in all its forms. I believe we should develop them. I believe the traffic in our streets is as nothing to what it will be in a few years. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can show that the widenings and the street improvements which they propose under this Bill are likely really to facilitate the arterial road improvements, and such schemes as that which do not only relate to the trams, but help all forms of traffic, I think they will have made out a very strong case for this expenditure. If, however, it is merely a necessary extension to the existing tramways system I do hope the House will keep a very critical eye upon it.
In this connection I should really like to allude to the same point raised by the previous speaker. No less than £1,000,000 is put down for the purchase of tramway undertakings. I beg hon. Members opposite in charge to look upon this matter not only from the county council, but from the ratepayers' and the economical, point of view. Can they make out, first of all, a case that this expenditure is absolutely essential? Is it possible to reduce anything of the amount or spread it over a longer term of years? It is really necessary at the present juncture, when things are hard and difficult for everybody and many ratepayers in London are wondering how on earth they are to find the money to pay their rates, is it, I ask, absolutely essential to go in for such expenditure as this in one lump? Could not we spread the liability over, and go slowly? I really do hope that the House will consider the point of view of the rate payer who has to pay this money, and will look upon it in the same way as, I think, generally speaking, all sections and parties in this House now look upon matters of the kind, for I believe they are absolutely at one about the desirability of saving every penny, whether upon municipal affairs or national affairs. Let us see if we cannot save something upon this £1,000,000, to which reference has been made.
Column 3 is supposed to set out the total estimate of the previous money Acts. There is, however, as I make out, absolutely nothing in Column 3 against Clause 20 of this Bill. That is a very serious omission, because it may mean
supplementary Estimates, and I am afraid that the infection of supplementary Estimates is very catching; this is so, I. am afraid, in all walks of life, not only in national and local affairs but even often, I regret to say, in our private affairs as well. It is a very natural and a very human thing, but, at the same time, I maintain that we ought to do all in our power to avoid supplementary Estimates. It is true that there is an asterisk against the column which refers to a paragraph at the bottom of the page, but it does not tell us any more of what the original estimate was, for all this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will tell us what was the original estimate, and whether the total sum provided here, or to, be provided, is likely to be sufficient for the purpose?
Take the London County Council Hall. As a ratepayer in this great city of London I look upon that structure with dismay. I do not know how many millions it is going to cost, and I should like to know. What was the original estimate for the London County Council Hall? What is the total expenditure expected to be? Is the figure going to be a final figure? What is the expenditure up to date? It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary for someone to take up the cudgels on behalf of the London ratepayers and to look at the matter from their point of view, and not from the London County Council point of view. There is this tremendous hall going up on the other side of the river. I always understood that the County Council themselves had no idea what the total expenditure involved was likely to be. I know there are great difficulties. I know that" when they started this building it was before the War, and that in those days they had a fairly good idea of what the possible figure would be. I understood it to be anything from one million to four millions. The last figure I got was before the War and was about £4,000,000. I may be wrong; but I agree that the building was started before the War, and the War has introduced other factors, and costs have been sent up in every direction. It is desirable that the County Council should have a building to centralise all their administrative offices, if indeed they can compress their existing administration into this building, and upon that I have doubts. I should like to know if the
hon. Members opposite are satisfied that they can get all their staff into this building. I want to be satisfied that this building is really adequate for the purpose.
I do not look upon this from a hostile point of view, but from the point of view of necessity, economy, and the point of view of the ratepayer. If the building is really necessary the ratepayer will be in favour of it just the same as the county council, but let us be assured, and let us have our doubts on these matters set at rest once and for all, and let us be told exactly what was the original estimate, the expenditure up to date, the final expenditure, and, if possible, when the building will be completed? Also whether or not it will hold the staff of the county council, or will it be necessary still to retain offices all over London? There are other items in this Bill I should like to take up. For instance, there is the item already alluded to of £200,000 for the purchase of land for street improvements. What is it, or what can it be, in the London County Council General Powers Bill that necessitates this spending over and above the amount already provided for on page? I only want to see whether it is possible to save anything in this tremendous expenditure. I hope the representatives of the London County Council in charge of the Bill will be able publicly to set at rest some of the doubts which they, as well as we, know have arisen in the minds of many of the ratepayers of London. Think of the poorest of the poor, the people who pay the rates not in the rich West End, but in the poorest districts of London, and in such a constituency as I have the honour to represent. We want to be satisfied that the expense is absolutely necessary and cannot be reduced in any particular, and then I think you will have the support of the ratepayers. The London County Council must disabuse our minds in regard to what is called tramway madness and unnecessary bricks and mortar, and you must try and satisfy and allay the many doubts that have arisen in the minds of the ratepayers.

Major GRAY: If I fail to answer satisfactorily the many queries which have been addressed to me I hope the blame may be placed upon me and not upon the merits of the case which I have to put forward. Let me express my cordial
appreciation of the friendly tone which has been adopted by our critics this evening. I have felt in years gone by that the criticism of the House has not always been helpful to those engaged in the difficult task of administering the affairs of this great city, but to-night I appreciate the great friendliness shown by our critics in regard to county council expenditure.
9.0 P.M.
This Bill is one which we are compelled to present annually. Under the County Council Finance Consolidation Act of 1912 this Bill must be presented in order that Parliament may have an opportunity of criticising our expenditure. The Bill provides for expenditure in three different forms. There is the ordinary capital expenditure; there are certain amounts which we may spend, subject to the sanction of the Treasury, in excess of those capital amounts; and then come loans to local authorities and other bodies. The Schedule gives the full details of the expenditure. The existing powers come under Part I. May I point out that the works to which the Noble Lord opposite has referred have already received the sanction of a Committee of the House of Commons, and assuming that the measure reaches the Statute Book then the expenditure expressed in Part II will come up for payment. The loans which I notice received slight criticism are referred to in Part IV. The capital expenditure provided for amounts to about £13,000,000. The general powers expenditure will add another £100,000. There is a provision whereby the Treasury may sanction fresh expenditure to the extent of £350,000, and the amount expressed in the Bill for loans is given at £3,500,000. Let me say at once, in reply to the criticisms of the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that these figures are nothing like as bad as they look on the paper. Although the total amount here is something over £16,750,000, which led the Noble Lord to figuratively shudder, yet of that amount no less than £15,250,000 has already been authorised by Parliament, so that the new borrowing powers are to the extent of only £1,500,000. The Bill has to be framed in a most peculiar form. It has to provide not only for a financial year but for a financial period. There is a period of 12 months and a subsequent six
months, and in each of these Bill we have to put the estimated expenditure up to the year ending the 31st March, and also for the six months between. March and September following. Before that money comes in course of payment the new Bill comes in, and the figures in the first Bill for the six months' period are again put into the Bill for the next period for a year and six months. It is a little bit complicated, but it is owing to the wisdom of previous Parliaments that they have to be so arranged.
A very large amount of this expenditure has received the approval of the House. The new borrowing powers are something under £1,500,000. It may be a further consolation if I remark that so far as we can see at present there will be no need to go to the money market during the course of this year. We hope that the funds in hand will enable us to meet the expenditure set forth in this Bill. I may perhaps say that probably there can be no keener critic of the action of the County Council than the investing public of London, and our experience in this respect during the last year is of a most encouraging character. We had to float a loan last year of £7,000,000, and it was placed on the market at 95 with interest at 5¾ per cent It was placed there at a most unfortunate moment, because a day or two after our issue events occurred to which I need not refer which made it very awkward indeed to secure the taking up of the whole of the loan, but the underwriters were very soon able to unload it, and it is a significant fact that immediately afterwards we were able to place £1,500,000, not at the old price of 95, but at an enhanced price of 97¼.
In addition to that we have raised during the course of the year something like £3,500,000 for housing bonds, very largely due to the splendid energy displayed by my hon. Friend who is now a Member of this House sitting for Hastings, who had charge of the Department dealing with the finance for housing purposes, and who has materially assisted in collecting this large sum of money. Consequently those people who would be the most likely to criticise us if we were tempted to be extravagant have shown their confidence by placing their money at our disposal at the figures I have given. I realise quite fully the criticism which prevails outside. Some of it is no
doubt malevolent, but the greater part of it is due to lack of information.
I am prepared to admit that at one time we had a most unenviable notoriety as a great spendthrift authority. I do not say it was deserved, but there never was a time when that criticism would be so unjust as it would be at the present moment. I have taken an active part on all its committees, and I know that those of us who were keen on the accomplishment of some reform have had a most difficult struggle to get the necessary money sanctioned, first by the Finance Committee, and then by the county council. Here is the Resolution adopted by the council, and our estimates now before the House have been framed in accordance with that Resolution. They decided as far back as December, 1919, that
in the opinion of the council the capital expenditure should be restricted during the next few years to such purposes as may be regarded as urgently necessary from the point of view of the health and well-being of the community, and that in consideration of what purposes are to be so regarded the undermentioned be deemed to be of primary importance, generally in the order indicated, namely: The more urgent items in the scheme of flood relief works.
No one can delay that work. To deal with the great drainage question of London is one of paramount importance. That is the kind of work which occurs in the Bill. That was to be in the forefront. And then the council's housing schemes received second place, very largely owing to the pressure exercised by this House itself, through the Ministry of Health. Then came urgent works and duties in connection with the education service. So that we have followed the precept often mentioned in this House in putting the health and education of the people in the forefront of our programme. I feel sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) will not object to that.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I did not mention either of those things.

Major GRAY: No, but perhaps I may be permitted to draw attention to them, because it must not go out to the public that the only items in the measure now before the House are those which have been criticised. It is well that reference should be made to some of the others. Then came the tramway schemes, and here let me add this note. We have been
most careful not to embark on schemes which were likely to produce no special return. Then came street improvements in cases of pressing urgency or in which specially favourable opportunities occurred for obtaining properties needed therefor. And it was further provided that proposals not included in the items mentioned should be considered on their merits when they arose. We have acted on those principles in this Bill. There is nothing in it which is not really necessary for the health, the comfort, and the well-being of the community.
If I may now turn from the Bill itself to attempt to answer some of the queries, and if I fail I hope that some of my colleagues on the Council will supplement any defect on my part. May I take that with which I am most familiar? Reference has been made to the Court House. This is one of our old, old troubles in London. I think it was some 14 years ago, when I was chairman of the Local Government Committee of the Council, we were hunting all over London for a suitable site for the establishment of a Central Court House. We were then housed and trying to administer justice at Clerkenwell and Newington. Both buildings were condemned in unmeasured language by every Justice who sat there. No one could defend them. They were unsuitable for the administration of justice; they were in-convenient for the Bench, for counsel, for jurors, for witnesses, and even for the accommodation of the prisoners themselves. The buildings were absolutely insufficient, and there was serious trouble also with regard to records that might be at Clerkenwell when they were wanted at Newington, and when they were wanted at Clerkenwell they were being housed at Newington. There was a strong opinion that we might go for a building somewhere near the Law Courts. There was a great idea of centralising the administration of justice in London, but we turned that down as too expensive. There was then a suggestion we might find accommodation at the New Bailey. We were in communication with the City Council on the matter, but that came to naught. We were assured that large though the accommodation appeared to be there, the authorities were of opinion that further claims might be made even upon those large buildings, and that it would be very inadvisable for us to attempt to house the work of Newington and Clerkenwell at
the New Bailey. Then having tried to find a home under any existing roof, and having tried to find accommodation at suitable sites elsewhere, and failed, we ultimately decided to rebuild on the site at Newington, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will be glad to know that the £14,500 mentioned here is the last payment in respect thereof, and that the buildings are not only completed but are being used. Justice is now being administered there, and so far I have not heard a word of complaint.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The £14,500 is to be spent in this year. The hon. Gentleman says this is the last penny. If he looks at the bottom of page 9 he will see he is asking for a payment of £900 in the next six months. Why should that be necessary?

Major GRAY: Beceuse it is retention money. A certain proportion is held over until we are thoroughly satisfied the contract has been properly completed, and although, therefore, this is the final money which Parliament will be asked to vote, some of it will not be paid until the necessary guarantees are forthcoming. Attention has been drawn also to the amount asked for in respect of stores—a sum of £16,270. This is for the improvement of the accommodation for handling the very large amount of stores used by the Council, and is necessary for the economical working of the Council's duties, in view of the continued and continuing increase in the demands made by the various services of the Council in the way of stores. The greater our work, particularly our educational work, the more desirable it becomes that we should purchase in large bulk with a view to economy, and have them suitably stored and suitably distributed. It is a very heavy task, but, after full consideration, the Council have reached the conclusion it is the most economical way of dealing with this material. Our existing buildings have become totally insufficient, and it is absolutely essential we should enlarge in order to accommodate the stuff. If we do not have the stuff housed it cannot be distrubuted when it is wanted, and a considerable amount of delay will occur, particularly in the educational work.
I should like, if I may be forgiven by my first catechist, to deal at once as far
as I can with our County Hall. I do not know what he would say if he were familiar with the manner in which the County Council is housed at the present time. I cannot tell him where it is housed. We seem to be scattered all over London. Buildings are rented here, buildings are rented there, heavy expenses are incurred year by year, and we never know whether our landlord will require the premises, making it necessary for us to go and placing us in serious difficulty in regard to finding housing accommodation for some Department or other. The public, too, never know where to go to for necessary information. A London taxi-cab driver is supposed to know pretty well everything about London, but if you ask him to drive you to the County Council he declares that it is not at Spring Gardens but at some place or other where he goes for his licence—a totally different place; and so it is with the public generally. I am glad to say that already a large part of the new Hall is ready for habitation, and a considerable number of our people are now housed there.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the Education Department be housed in the new County Hall, or will it remain on the Thames Embankment after the Hall is completed?

Major GRAY: It will be housed in the new County Hall. We intend to have everything we can under one roof, and I believe that the Education Staff is likely to be housed there in September next—certainly during the course of this year. It is the next Department to be transferred, and we hope to be able to dispose, at a profitable figure, of the bulding now inhabited by that branch of the Service. I understand that the Architect's Department is already housed in the new County Hall. With regard to the cost of the building, I am afraid that the story I have to give cannot be regarded, at first sight at all events, as quite satisfactory. We are, however, the victims of circumstances. The bulding was commenced before the War, and it was understood that it might be completed, or at any rate those sections of it which were then contemplated, for some £900,000. I believe that the completed building will cost something over £4,000,000 when furnished. These are the figures which have been given recently at meetings of the Council. The original estimate for sections A, B, and C, now in progress,
was £900,000, but when the tender was accepted in 1913 the total was brought up to £1,193,000 by the inclusion of fees and incidentals. As time went on we were faced with difficulty after difficulty—labour disputes, increased wages, difficulties with regard to the supply of material—until the total estimated amount for the complete scheme for sections A, B, and C amounts to £3,316,000; and if the other section D be added at a later date, it is probable that that will cost rather more than another £1,000,000, making a total of about £4,344,000 for the building and its furniture. It must not, however, be imagined for a moment that that means new expenditure. It means the possibility of closing a large number of buildings in different parts of London for which we are now paying annually heavy rents and in which the accommodation is so defective that really efficient work cannot be done by the staff. I can assure the House that in erecting the new County Hall we are not seeking the convenience of members of the Council, but first and last the efficiency of the County Council service. You cannot get thoroughly efficient service from clerks who are working below the level of the pavement; you cannot get it in cramped rooms, badly ventilated and lighted. We were bound to put that staff, which is charged with such large responsibilities, into buildings where they could work effectively. Very little indeed has been spent in costly decoration; our sole object has been the greater efficiency of the London service.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the county council pay rates to itself, or will it be free from rates?

Major GRAY: I anticipate that, like most other dwellings, the Hall will be rated by the local authority, and that it will bring a substantial relief from the general county rate to the rate of the borough in which we happen to be situated.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us whether all the existing offices will go into blocks A, B and C, or whether there will still be offices which cannot be got into the building?

Major GRAY: I believe that the Tramways Department will still be outside this block. It is in premises somewhat
removed from the new County Hall, and, if my memory serves me rightly, the idea is that the Tramways Department may subsequently be brought into the block to which I have referred as contemplated in the near future. The total figure which I gave provides for all the four blocks.

Viscount CURZON: If block D is erected, will there be a further item?

Major GRAY: If block D be erected we shall require for that block about £1,027,000, which will include £67,000 for fees and incidentals. That would bring up the total for the four blocks to the £4,344,000 which I mentioned a minute ago.

Viscount CURZON: Will the county council have to come to this House for that?

Major GRAY: Undoubtedly, and not only once but twice. Further, we could not possibly expend that money in one year, and we should have to come to the House for such portion as we expected to spend in the one year. That has been one of our difficulties. These various figures in connection with the County Hall have been sanctioned over and over again by this House, but we have not been able to get the work completed, owing to difficulties in regard to labour and the supply of materials. In fact, in common with every other patriotic body throughout the country, we suspended all building operations during the War. Hon. Members will recollect that when the War broke out there was a perfect forest of cranes over there The whole of them had to be taken away, and the building machinery was removed, and it goes without saying that that was a pretty costly item for us. We could not expect a contractor to meet that expense himself, and it had to be borne mainly by the county council. It was one of the misfortunes consequent on the War.
Perhaps I may refer to the other items somewhat in the order in which they appear in the Schedule of the Bill. My Noble Friend the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) drew attention to the expenditure on the fire brigade. I am certain that he will not hesitate to grant us every penny we want for the greater efficiency of the fire brigade of London. I look upon the fire brigade and the ambulance service as two of the finest services possessed by any municipal
authority, and the public regard the fire brigade as their first line of insurance. There is a proposal in the Schedule to spend an amount of £84,550. Of this sum no less than £74,000 is in respect of the purchase and adaptation of the station of the London Salvage Corps in Shaftesbury Avenue. When that station is ready for use by the fire brigade we shall be able to dispense with three existing stations—one in Scotland Yard, one in Great Marlborough Street, and one in Holborn. There will be a realisation of the effects, which will be a source of income, there will be greater concentration and economies consequent on concentration. I think the whole will prove to the ratepayer a very profitable transaction, both in the way of greater efficiency and of greater economy. The whole policy of the fire brigade lately has been concentration in a smaller number of stations, owing to the fact that we have now motor appliances instead of relying upon our magnificently trained horses, as in the past. Although they were wonderfully picturesque, and no doubt very often added interesting scenes to London life, yet they had their limitations. Now we find that with motor transit we can cover greater distances in the requisite time and get out of the yards quite as quickly as ever. Therefore the process of concentration is continuing. I understand that we have already, in pursuance of this policy, closed about a dozen stations in different parts of London. All that concentration naturally leads to greater efficiency and economy.
Attention has been drawn to the housing proposals. I admit that the figure is a very heavy one, but the greater part of the Estimate is in respect of the erection of cottages on the Council's estates at Roehampton, Bellingham, and Dagenham. The council entered on these schemes at the very urgent request of the Government, as represented by the Ministry of Health. The expenditure, as far as the London ratepayer is concerned is, as the House well knows, limited to the produce of a 1d. in the £; but I hesitate to think what the consequent charge will be on the taxpayer if the whole scheme is in operation. This I can say, however, that in the light of existing circumstances and the changes that have taken place, the Council is now, although completing the work in hand,
regarding with some hesitancy any proposals to extend the policy in that direction. I can assure the House that it is a problem which we are watching with very grave anxiety. I recollect very well, when we came here with our original proposals and placed them before the Minister of Health, we contemplated the erection of cottages of certain cost, heavy enough. When our first tenders came in we had a terrible awakening, and that continues. I venture to hope that certainly we shall avoid anything in the way of wild experiment until both materials and labour reach something like the normal cost.
I am asked to give some explanation of the money which is being spent on public improvements. There are improvements which we have to undertake under the Metropolis Management Acts. They amount to about £400,000. No provision is made in the Bill now before the House for any new large improvement. They are all works that are in hand. The largest items are £111,000 and £154,500 for property in connection with the continuation of widenings in Piccadilly and the Strand respectively. Hon. Members who know both thoroughfares will realise that the widening process is one we ought to carry out. So far as the Piccadilly widening is concerned, we are very largely in the hands of the Government. The expenditure there we are bound to undertake, and we have agreed with the Office of Works that the work is to be carried out under certain terms arranged with them. There is also the substantial sum I have mentioned for the widening of the Strand. With regard to the improvements under Special Acts—£243,000 odd—these again are all improvements already partly carried out, with the exception of those at Old Street and Kingsland Road, for which about £50,000 is set aside in the Bill, and Cable Street, Stepney, where £60,000 is set aside. My hon. Friend asked me if it was not thought possible to postpone them. I wish he knew the Old Street corner. I do. I once represented that district on the London County Council, and I doubt whether I ever had a week's peace from the inhabitants there. The congestion of traffic, the delay and the risk of accident which occur every hour at that corner make it absolutely necessary that something should be done to improve that particular area. We did try to anticipate the hon. Member's wish,
and our Finance Committee, I think, deleted this particular item. When it came to the Council they insisted on putting it back again, and so on their behalf I have to ask the House to sanction this small beginning for an improvement which has been all too long delayed. It should have been undertaken 30 or 40 years ago, and if we spend £50,000 on it this year that amount of money will not be wasted.
There is one other item, and an important one, that of tramways—£1,000,000. I know very well I have only to mention tramways in certain company to excite criticism instantly, and, on the other hand, just as my hon. Friend remarked a few moments ago, any attempt to criticise tramways meets with a hostile reception. What is the position in regard to this £1,000,000? Two hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds is in respect of the purchase of the London United Tramways, which the Council agreed to buy one year after the conclusion of the War. We are anticipating that the War will conclude before the end of this next year, and, if so, we shall be compelled to give effect to our agreement with this company and to buy the tramways for £235,000. Let me give this further assurance. There is no provision here in respect of any new projects. I have accounted for £235,000, but no less than £226,250 is in respect of half cost of renewing the track where it is in need of renewal. Here, again, we are partly making good trouble which arose during the War. Repairs had to be delayed until in some parts of London these tracks are now positively dangerous both to traffic and pedestrians as well as the tramcars themselves.

Viscount CURZON: What is the condition of the track which you are buying for £235,000 from the London United Tramways Company?

Major GRAY: I am afraid I cannot say. I must ask the Noble Lord to be good enough to give me notice of that question. I have mentioned the main items to which attention has been drawn. I only venture to say, in conclusion, that these Estimates have been framed with scrupulous care. It is not an easy task to administer this great city. It calls for the labour of some of the best of our citizens. They are difficult enough to secure for this work, as we all know. Anything in the shape
of petty or ill-founded criticism in this House serves to discourage, not only those who are working, but those who may be induced to undertake this great work. I am glad indeed to-night to find that there has been no evidence of any spirit of that kind at all. Therefore I can say on the part of the Council that we very cordially welcome the very fruitful interest which the hon. Member for Cambridge has always shown in the finances of the Council. I trust that he will always criticise them, and will never have more cause for criticism than he has had this evening.

Mr. LORDEN: The hon. Member has dealt with the enormous cost that is down here for housing. I have on many occasions drawn attention to the very huge cost that is being piled up. Here is an evidence of it. Here you find £16,750,000, of which £7,081,000 is the County Council's own expenditure, and in Item 24 there are loans to the metropolitan borough councils, and over £1,000,000 of it will be advanced for houses. Therefore you have practically half of this huge expenditure devoted to housing. I am very glad to hear the County Council is going warily; but it is not going warily enough. In many places they are continuing to build on a very costly method. It is useless to proceed with houses where the rent is more than people can pay. There are many houses at Roehampton for which they are asking 25s. a week and the rates are another 7s., and yet the ratepayer has to find £70 to £90 per annum in addition for each house. That is colossal, and some method must be found of producing houses at rents which people can pay. You will never do it on the principle you have now. Here is an object lesson right in front of us of practically half the County Council's Money Bill being expended on housing alone, and I hope they will take it to heart.

Mr. GILBERT: No one knows better than the hon. Member himself that the criticism he has just made of the County Council's housing policy is rather unfair, because all the houses they are carrying out, and also the housing schemes the borough councils are carrying out, for which we have to provide the money for loans, are carried out with the approval of the Ministry of Health. The whole of the schemes for which the Council are responsible have to be submitted to the
Ministry, not only for the plans, but also for the laying out of the various estates. The hon. Member's criticism should be addressed to the Ministry of Health and not to the Bill. It is quite true that a large part of the amount for loans to borough councils is required for housing. We provide, in that amount of £2,000,000 for the Metropolitan Borough Councils, £907,000 for houses. The rest of the amount is made up for electricity, sewers, and other municipal work of that kind. I thought it only fair to the County Council, as the hon. Member has made that criticism, to put the case for them fairly before the House.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS [MONEY].

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the re-organisation and further regulation of railways, and the discharge of liabilities in connection with the possession of railways, and otherwise to amend the law relating to railways, and to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee, it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of a sum of sixty million pounds in satisfaction of claims which might have been made by railway companies in Great Britain for compensation under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of, or in respect of, the possession by the Crown of the undertakings, railroads, or plant of such railway companies, or in the exercise of the powers conferred by those Acts;
(b) of the expenses (including the remuneration of members and staff) of any tribunals which may be established by the said Act;
(c) of contributions by the Treasury to any pension or superannuation fund of which any officer or servant of a railway company transferred to the Minister of Transport may remain a member, and of allowances for the disturbance of officers and servants;
(d) of the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as the Committee is continued in existence by the said Act."

Question again proposed.

Mr. WATERSON: On a point of Order. At 8.15 we were discussing an Amendment to leave out "sixty" and to insert "ten." I want to ask, seeing that the second Amendment is in the wrong place, and should be before the one that was under discussion, if it is your intention that the second Amendment should be thoroughly discussed after we have discussed the one now under consideration?

The CHAIRMAN: I understand the Amendment that comes first on the Paper was not actually put from the Chair. In these circumstances, we are not obliged to proceed with it. Therefore I will put the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name. At the same time, I do not think the Amendment is one of substance, and it does not appear to me, subject to either what the hon. Member or the Minister in charge may have to say, that it would make any difference whatever to the Resolution if it were carried.

Mr. WATERSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "of" ["a sum of sixty million pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I hope I may be able to satisfy the hon. Member that it is not necessary to proceed with the Amendment. I will give the explanation as to how the figure of £60,000,000 comes to be in Clause 10. Everyone is familiar with the controversy proceeding with the railway companies and the Government as to the right of the railway companies to receive certain monetary payments under the agreements which were arrived at on the basis of the 1871 Act when the railways were taken possession of by the State. These matters were inquired into in detail by a Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn, and their Report has formed the subject of a discussion in the House. Lord Colwyn's Committee took a great deal of evidence and took infinite pains, and they did their best to tabulate the claims which were possible against the State under the agreement, and in their Report, with which I hope every hon. Member is familiar, they arrived at the conclusion that there were possible claims outstanding against the State at the end of the period of control which might reach £150,000,000 on certain specified items, with an indefinite sum beyond which
could not be ascertained. That has been estimated in the previous discussion as possibly another £50,000,000. There was one thing that was quite plain in the discussion in this House, and so far as one could judge of public feeling outside, and that was that it was not wise and prudent that litigation of unprecedented length and complexity, and of great uncertainty, should be undertaken between the various railway companies, 114 in number, and the State, upon this question, if a reasonable and fair conclusion could be arrived at by friendly negotiation. I do not think any hon. Member can cavil that that was the complete opinion of the House of Commons in the previous discussion.
There seemed to be very great difficulties in the way of negotiation. There were 114 railways concerned, and there was no negotiating body. They had their varying claims, and it was very difficult to find out just what they would be; but in the course of discussion the Minister of Transport threw out a suggestion that he was quite prepared to discuss the matter if somebody could be found with the necessary authority to negotiate with him.
The course which the Government have taken is the one that was outlined in a speech that I had the honour of making in one of the previous Debates. We first took the advice of the law officers of the Crown as to their view of the legal position, and the prospect of litigation. The Minister had the assistance of an extremely strong Cabinet Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the present Lord Privy Seal. He had also the great assistance of his expert financial adviser at the Ministry (Sir George Beharrell) and of Sir Hardman Lever, the Treasury official. Fortunately, the railway companies put themselves in a position to enter into negotiation. Those negotiations were conducted by very close bargaining by my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government, and by the representatives of the railway companies on behalf of the general mass of railway companies. So close was the bargaining that at one time it seemed as if agreement was remote, but, fortunately, agreement was arrived at and that agreement was for a sum of £60,000,000.
Here I come to a position where I think I can appeal to my hon. Friends not to press any Amendment upon this matter.
It is quite obvious that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. There is a bargain, subject to ratification by Parliament. You cannot reduce the sum which you have agreed upon except by a further agreement. If that is so, the whole settlement necessarily goes unless Parliament sees fit to confirm the agreement arrived at. That must be perfectly obvious to my hon. Friends opposite, who have been looking into this matter and have thought it right—I make no complaint—to put down an Amendment to ascertain exactly the position of the Government in the matter. Of course, Parliament is supreme, and it will be open to Parliament to refuse this money Resolution, and therefore to end the bargain which has provisionally been arrived at. The effect of that would be at once to open the doors to endless litigation, and to a state of uncertainty which would neither be good for the public nor for the railway companies. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate thing than that the railway companies should be put in the position of not being able to know their financial outlook at the end of the period of control, and that they should have to face interminable, extremely costly, and very difficult litigation. This recommendation is submitted to the Committee on the authority of the Government, and my hon. Friends will remember that it had the support on Second Reading of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, the legal adviser of the Government, who, speaking with the double authority of a Member of the Cabinet and of the law office, who is responsible for the litigation of the Crown, had no hesitation in recommending the House to ratify and confirm the bargain which had been arrived at by negotiation.
I am prepared to give any information I can to the House upon this matter. Hon. Members will realise that when you have been conducting negotiations with people outside, you have to get to a result by virtue of the use of that word which is so useful and yet so elastic. I mean the word "reasonable." There has been, I trust, a reasonable spirit shown by both sides in this matter, and I invite the Committee, without hesitation, to confirm the results arrived at.

Mr. WATERSON: I have listened very patiently to my hon. Friend who has spoken on behalf of the Government, but in his speech there has been very little
that has convinced me of the necessity of withdrawing this Resolution. He gave to us, in his usual courteous and eloquent fashion, an exposition of the reason why the Government have come to a decision of this character. Many of us have gone closely into the Colwyn Report, and we are reminded of the fact that there are Members of that Committee who are not quite satisfied that the £60,000,000 is a satisfactory amount. I am aware that many Members think that a higher sum should have been inserted. But there are also many Members who think that a smaller sum should have been inserted. In moving this Amendment we are anxious to safeguard ourselves for the Committee stage of this Bill. Under the terms of the Resolution as they stand there must be a sum of £60,000,000. It cannot be a penny less or a penny more. If it has to be increased it would be necessary for the Minister in charge of the Bill to come to the House to get authority to

make the increase. We are anxious, when we come to the Committee stage, that we shall be able to have a full Debate on it with that view. We fail to see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. It has been said that we cannot reduce the £60,000,000 unless we are prepared to set up another agreement and break the present agreement. I cannot enter into that matter, because it would be out of order. But if these words are substituted it will not alter the question of the figure which is to come on on the next Amendment. I would ask the Committee to consider this, so that when the Committee stage may come it shall again have the opportunity of retaining the £60,000,000 or substituting some other sum which they feel justified according to the evidence that was given.

Question put, "That the word 'of' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 38.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[9.59 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Armitage, Robert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atkey, A. R.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Parker, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnston, Major Harry
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barrand, A. R.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Pratt, John William


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hills, Major John Waller
Prescott, Major W. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hinds, John
Purchase, H. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hood, Joseph
Rae, H. Norman


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ramsden, G. T.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Renwick, George


Butcher, Sir John George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Casey, T. W.
Jameson, John Gordon
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Clough, Robert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Seager, Sir William


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Dawes, James Arthur
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Edge, Captain William
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Wallace, J.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Elveden, viscount
Maddocks, Henry
Waring, Major Walter


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Magnus, Sir Philip
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Forrest, Walter
Manville, Edward
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Matthews, David
Winterton, Earl


Gardiner, James
Middlebrook, Sir William
Wise, Frederick


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.



Gould, James C.
Morrison, Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Neal, Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cairns, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Finney, Samuel
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Galbraith, Samuel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gillis, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
O'Grady, James



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Sexton, James
Mr. Waterson and Mr. Wignall.


Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "sixty," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
I do not think it respectful to the Committee for the Minister of Transport not to be in his place when this important Resolution is being taken. Of course I appreciate very much the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I noticed that the Minister of Transport was able to come and vote, for I saw him in the Lobby. If he is now in the House, why cannot he be here? He asks for £60,000,000 for the compensation of the railway companies and in the same Resolution he asks for further moneys to an indeterminate amount for the expenses of the tribunals and the Rates Advisory Committee. This Bill affects every single soul in the country; the commercial community, labour, private persons and everyone. I do not wish to be personal, but it is against Parliamentary custom for the Minister not to be in his place. This sort of treatment has been meted out to myself and my friends continuously from the time when this Bill was first mooted. We representatives of Hull have been treated with contumely. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply on the Second Reading, did not deal with the objections raised by us and we were told by him that they were matters to be considered in Committee. That was on a par with the treatment we have received throughout. We see the tyranny of the North Eastern Railway with its monopoly reflected in the tyranny of the Minister of Transport in regard to this House, in not being present to deal with this Resolution. When a sum of £60,000,000 is asked for the Minister might at least have the courtesy to be present. I think we have a right to demand the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, and without further ado I beg to ask leave to Move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I cannot accept that Motion.

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order, as to whether you should take the Motion. Is it not the unbroken practice of the House that when a Minister asks—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, Order!

Captain BENN: Am I not entitled to urge you to take the Motion, in accordance with the usual practice that a Minister, if available, should be present in his place—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given my decision.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am entirely in your hands, and if you do not accept my Motion, I cannot press it. With regard to the £60,000,000, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, whose courtesy I wish to acknowledge, that if a bargain has been made we cannot go back on it, but, at the same time, I am bound to say, after reading the Report of the Colwyn Committee, that that impartial and diligent Committee expressed grave doubts about the companies' original claim of £165,000,000. Now we see that the claim has been reduced to £60,000,000. When the agreement with the companies was made by Mr. Runciman in the stress of the War, he, perhaps, had not the opportunity of taking the best available opinion, and hon. Members will be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his very onerous and responsible position, and will make allowances in the case of this agreement. I do not wish to be unfair to the directors of our great railways, for I realise their service to the country, but I think that the railway companies, in the best interests of their shareholders, have taken full advantage of that agreement. The compromise now is for the sum of £60,000,000. The hon. Member (Mr. Spencer), who originally moved this Amendment, made out a good case for further consideration of the matter. I have no special know-
ledge of railways, but it seems to me even now that £60,000,000 is a large sum under the circumstances. Everyone had to make sacrifices during the War. Why the railways and the railway shareholders should not "stand their corner "in the general sacrifices of the nation, I do not understand.
The companies have accepted the grouping system, and I would very much like to know how much of that acceptance was influenced by the knowledge that the House would be invited to vote this sum of £60,000,000. The railway directors may have been satisfied as to the system of grouping, but, speaking for people who have to use the railways, I can assure the Minister of Transport that such people are by no means satisfied. It may be easy with this sum of £60,000,000 to salve the consciences of the railway directors. I, of course, impute no improper motives to them, but the right hon. Gentleman will find it a difficult matter to satisfy the mercantile community, particularly in the great ports served by these railways. The directors of some of the subsidiary lines may be satisfied to amalgamate with the great systems such as the North Eastern, but that will not be sufficient for the commercial communities served by those subsidiary railways. On the Second Reading of the Bill this very important matter was raised by two hon. Members who assist me in representing the City of Hull.

Mr. GRITTEN: Assist you?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, in this matter at any rate. I was not so fortunate as to have had an opportunity of taking part in that Debate. The right hon. Gentleman—relying no doubt on the result of the £60,000,000—in the long, interesting, eloquent, and able speech he made in reply on that occasion did not even refer to our objection. I appeal to hon. Members whose constituencies are served by the Port of Hull, the fourth seaport in the world, to consider this. The whole of the business community, apart from party or class, are united in opposition to the proposal of grouping in this Bill.

Mr. GRITTEN: As things are in the Ministry of Transport.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is true. We are bitterly opposed to
the Ministry of Transport and all its ways. Although this £60,000,000 which the taxpayers have to find may reconcile the directors of these companies to grouping, I repeat—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the whole question of grouping. This is a finance Resolution. Discussion must follow the Resolution and the financial questions involved in the Resolution, and should not go beyond that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not pursue the matter, but if this £60,000,000 is to be taken as being the sugar for the pill of grouping, I, as representing 300,000 taxpayers, who will have to find this money, am bound to resist the proposal. This is in no way a party question, and it is only by accident that I am in the position of moving this Amendment. My fellow Members for Hull would also do so. We object strenuously to voting money for the agreement embodied in the Bill and based on this Resolution as being contrary to the best interests of our constituents. If this had been 300 years ago the citizens of Hull would have been burnishing their armour and their culverins, pikes, and partisans. They did it 300 years ago when they closed their gates on the King.

Mr. GRITTEN: Had they railways then?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, they had not, but when an attempt was made to override them by executive authority they shut their gates on the King and stood for the Parliamentary party.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting rather wide of the subject under discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry if I have proceeded to view the matter from the historical point of view. Until we get some satisfaction I, for one, shall strenuously resist the voting of this money, and I hope I shall be supported in that by many hon. Members.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I regret I was not present when the Amendment was moved. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was saying when I came in that he claimed no special knowledge of rail-
ways, but those of us who have listened to him can hardly believe that. He referred to the grouping of railways as being the sugar for the pill. With the exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—and I always make that exception—the rest of the railways believe in grouping, and, in fact, my right hon. Friend believes in grouping on a voluntary basis. As regards the £60,000,000, it is unnecessary to use that to sugar the pill, because there is no pill. We arrived at that figure after very careful consideration. It is almost impossible, in any compromise on vast, vague claims, to say exactly how your compromise was arrived at; but if you take six men who are honestly trying to arrive at what is fair, who have the facts before them, and eventually you get to a figure like this, after, I think, two months of the most strenuous negotiations that I have ever taken part in, I have some confidence in submitting it to the Committee as a fair figure. We had the opinion of the Law Officers, we had consultations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Prime Minister, and gradually, by a process of giving a little here and taking a little there, we have arrived at this figure.
It may be that some hon. Members think the figure is more than in equity should have been given, but after all, in this House, and in every section of this House, we have to consider what our obligations are. It is not this Government, it is not any particular Government, but we entered into certain obligations, and we cannot look at this entirely from the point of view of what we think is equity at the present time. We have got to look at it from the point of view of what is fair, having regard to the document we put our signature to, or our predecessors did, and looking at that, we came to the conclusion—though my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull is over-modest as to his knowledge of railways, perhaps in this particular thing we know more—we had all the facts before us, we had the benefit of months of consultation and negotiations, and we came to the conclusion that the figure we recommend to the Committee is a fair figure. It is £51,000,000, as nearly as one can get it. The State undertook to maintain the railways at a
certain standard during the War. That might not have been wise or prudent, but they did undertake it, and that we had to take into account, and many other factors we had to take into account, and I had the benefit throughout of consultation, at certain stages daily, with the Attorney-General, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Lord Privy Seal, and with the Prime Minister, and we came to the conclusion that this was a fair sum. What is the alternative? The Committee is free to turn it down, to reject the settlement. You can have a vista of endless litigation, but nothing else. You can have no settlement in regard to the railways, if you reject this. It is almost impossible. It is true this Committee is free, but it has to take into account facts as they are. It is our duty to put this before this Committee as what we believe a fair and reasonable settlement. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to Hull. I knew Hull before he knew it. I knew Halifax before he did.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You will know Hell before I do.

Sir E. GEDDES: It is not a question of Hull. Hull can come up in Committee. I know the whole question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two hon. Members who spoke for Hull on the Second Reading have been kept off the Committee, and will not have a chance of bringing it up in Committee?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not know who is on the Committee. I do not select the Committee, but we can deal with Hull in Committee. I know the whole case. I have great sympathy with some aspects of the whole case, but I shall have certain points against the Hull case in Committee. The details of grouping can be discussed there, but this question has nothing to do with this settlement. This is a settlement of outstanding matters under the agreement, which, wisely or unwisely, the State undertook, and I do beg that this Committee, after months of consideration by a Committee, which put in most devoted work, and after most careful consideration and negotiation by half-a-dozen Members of the Government, will not reject this, simply because Hull does not agree.

Mr. GRITTEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his explanation, may I ask him to justify to this Committee the extension of the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee. Surely it is open to us to discuss this whole question on this Amendment, which is to reduce the £60,000,000 to £10,000,000. Surely paragraph (d) comes under it, because I notice in the first paragraph that part of it is to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee. If part of the £60,000,000 is required for that purpose, so can £50,000,000 be allocated in proportion, and I should like to hear the justification from the right hon. Gentleman of that point, which is very germane to the whole discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is, subject to anything the Minister may have to say on this matter. I understand the £60,000,000 (paragraph (a))—is the only question with which we are dealing for the moment—is in satisfaction of the claims of the companies, and the question of the Rates Advisory Committee will come under paragraph (d).

Mr. GRITTEN: I quite understand that would come under paragraph (d), but I should have thought this came within the general purview of discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that before I resumed the Chair an Amendment had been moved to reduce the £60,000,000 to £10,000,000.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Minister of Transport said that this £60,000,000 was not to gild the pill, because there was no pill. I should have thought there was a considerable pill. I have never been called upon to swallow such a pill all the years, now amounting to over 70, I have had the pleasure of spending in this world. I will not go into the question of grouping, because I think it would be out of order to do so, and it can be done when the Bill comes before the House. I will only deal with the question of the £60,000,000. The hon. Gentleman who has moved the reduction is apparently under the impression that the Government are giving too much. I am under the impression that the Government are giving too little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am only giving my impression. I may be wrong. But I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in nearly every case I have been right when I have made any statement of the
kind in this House, and especially when I have made a statement which has been received with disapproval by hon. Members opposite. It has always turned out that I have been right and that they have been wrong.

Mr. SPENCER: Not always.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, always. I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in thinking that the taxpayer will suffer. In fact, I am not sure that the hon. Member who has moved to leave out this sum would not have done better to leave it out altogether, because I believe if the £60,000,000 were left out the railway companies by going to the courts of law would secure their just due. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman in his speech a few minutes ago said that the Government were bound to give the railway companies back their property in the condition it was before the War. That is always what we have contended

Sir E. GEDDES: No, no!

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.

Sir E. GEDDES: If I said that, I withdraw it.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says first that he did not say it; then he says he wishes to withdraw it. When the words are brought home to him he wishes to withdraw them. I do not care whether he withdraws or not. We shall see what he has said by consulting the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is the real undertaking the Government agreed to in 1914. That being so, what is the result from the point of view of the taxpayer? If we were to leave the decision to the Courts of Law—and, after all, the decision of the Courts of Law even now are decisions on which everybody can depend as being given in the interests of right and justice—if, I say, we were to depend upon the Courts of Law what would the railway companies receive? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing!"] That is a matter of opinion. Take the Colwyn Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman has just cited—a hostile Committee. The Colwyn Committee said the railway companies might claim a sum of £150,000,000, and possibly another £50,000,000 in addition. [An HON. MEMBER: "But it did not say they would get it!"] They would get what the Court of Law decided. What does
the right hon. Gentleman do? The claim the railway companies might put in might be £150,000,000 and, under certain circumstances, £200,000,000. If the Motion that the whole of the £60,000,000 were left out were carried the result would be that the railway companies would have the opportunity of going to the Courts of Law, putting in a claim for £200,000,000. In all probability what would they get? I think they would get a very great deal more than £60,000,000.
I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for this, that the picture in "Punch" which represents him as a bloodhound and the hon. Member (Mr. Neal) who sits besides him as a terrier, after the picture by Landseer entitled "Dignity and Impudence," and states that they are the watchdogs of the Treasury, would come true. Because undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman is making a bargain for the taxpayer which is very advantageous from the taxpayers' point of view. The only point on which I disagree is in the White Paper where the right hon. Gentleman says that the sum of £60,000,000 under Clause 10 of the Bill is an agreed sum. It is not. It has been agreed to by some companies—the sum has really been agreed to by two or three general managers and one chairman. It was not agreed to by anybody else. My statements on this point are correct. Whether hon. Members agree with me or not, when I give a statement of fact I do not give it unless I know it. Under the circumstances I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they act in the interests of the taxpayers, will be wise not to question this sum.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: We have been told that this £60,000,000 is required for the purpose of safeguarding us against litigation. We have had no information as to any conditions in connection with that arrangement, and from that point of view I think we have a right to ask, seeing that under the Colwyn Report it is stated that £150,000,000, and possibly £200,000,000, would have been claimed, why £60,000,000 is proposed. The railway companies during the War were under very favourable conditions. They had their receipts for 1913 guaranteed. They were in a position which many other industries could not claim, and as a result they are to-day in a more favourable position than other people who were en-
gaged in industries which are essential to the interests of the community. The suspicion is aroused that this sum is in excess of what should be paid arising out of the conditions of Government control. We are rather afraid that the railway companies are being compensated for War risks and War conditions which everybody in the country had to bear on their own responsibility.
I agree, seeing that the country is poorer and nearly all of us are poorer, that there is no reason why anything should be done to safeguard the condition of the railways and the shareholders as such. The continued control of the railways after the War, and the control that is still going on, is, in my estimation, and always has been, favourable to the railway companies. Other industries have been under control and not under the same favourable conditions. Many of them, far more than the railway companies, could complain of bureaucratic interference. When all is said and done, control in connection with the railways was mainly exercised through the managers of the Executive Committee, and interference by the Government was minimised as a result. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said the Government did interfere in so far as in this connection the railway companies were prevented from dealing with the question of wages and hours, and that the arrangement arrived at in this respect was come to without their consent and against their wishes. I am perfectly certain that had the Government not been in the position of dealing with rates and hours in connection with the railway companies, there would have been a great deal more trouble over these questions had they been left under the control of the railway companies as such. I do object to this £60,000,000. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Transport that the actual sum will be £51,000,000. We object to that. We think the sum is excessive. We think that the railway companies should only be paid the amount laid down in the 1914 agreement covering the net receipts for 1913. We are perfectly entitled at this stage of the proceedings to protest against this money arrangement being introduced into the Bill at all. We would much prefer to have had the thing settled outside the scope of the Bill and debated
from other points of view. I understand, through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that if this Resolution of £60,000,000 is voted, it would debar us from discussing this in Committee.

Sir F. BANBURY: No. I never said it would debar any Member from discussing the subject in Committee. It is open to any Member in Committee to move to reduce the sum or leave it out altogether.

Mr. YOUNG: We thought in putting down these Amendments we were putting them down to safeguard our position in Committee. We understood that if this were carried we would not be able to raise them in Committee. In the circumstances we simply enter our protest to-night against this 51,000,000 being paid on the ground laid down by my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. MARRIOTT: There is one point on which I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, namely, this: I have never been able to understand why this particular sum finds any place in this particular Bill. It is a matter which I think ought to have been left entirely out of the scope of the Bill itself. When I have said that, my agreement with the hon. Gentleman comes to an end. What has been the general effect of the speech of my hon. Friend? It is that, on the whole, the Government have not made a good bargain for the nation, and that, on the contrary, the railway companies have been treated with extraordinary leniency and benevolence by the Government. That is not at all the view of those who know most about this matter. May I recall to the recollection of the House what was the position in August, 1914? In that month the Government entered, under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, into possession of the railways, and two things happened. In the first place, during the next four years, the Government were entitled to put on the railways, without being charged one farthing for it, any traffic that they chose. I challenge anyone who is acquainted with the facts to say that on the whole, in that respect alone, the Government did not make an admirable bargain with the railway companies.

Sir E. GEDDES: As my hon. Friend challenges anyone to say that, I entirely dissent.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the only person in the Committee with any knowledge of the subject—and, of course, I credit him with great knowledge—who would challenge that statement. I say that during those years—I am sorry to have to repeat it in face of what my right hon. Friend has just said—the Government were doing exceedingly well out of the bargain which they made with the railway companies

Sir E. GEDDES: Which years?

Mr. MARRIOTT: During the years of the War. I am speaking of the four years during the War, up to the Armistice in November, 1918, during which, under the Act of 1871, the Government exercised an option—

Sir E. GEDDES: My hon. Friend is taking a period which is by no means conclusive in itself. During those years up to the Armistice, it may well be that the traffic of the Government on the railways showed a credit balance, but if my hon. Friend will take the liabilities of the Government incurred during that time for expenditure which was not actually expended, but for which a liability was incurred, and will allow for that expenditure on arrears of maintenance being made in the two years succeeding the Armistice, during the period of control, then he will find that my protest is thoroughly justified.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Of course, I entirely appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made, but the fact is, as he knows as well as or better than any man in this House, that during those four years of war the railway companies were unable to undertake the ordinary repairs and maintenance of their systems, and the consequence was that when, after that period, they had to undertake those repairs at a time of very high wages and very high prices, they were put to exceptional charges." Everyone knows that.

Sir E. GEDDES: The State was.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Precisely; but the railways were put to it in the first
instance, and now the State is asking that the whole thing shall be wiped out with this sum of £60,000,000.

Sir E. GEDDES: indicated dissent.

Mr. MARRIOTT: That does not at all exhaust the case. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, just as much as we do, want to arrive at an equitable settlement of this question. My hon. Friend (Mr. Young) never speaks without carrying a great deal of conviction, but one item which I think he neglected in his speech was this. Not only were the railway companies carrying free all the traffic of the Government during the War, they were also placing at the disposal of the Government all their workshops without drawing a farthing of profit from those workshops. They were not profiteers; they were producing all that they did produce in the railway workshops at literally cost price. That is an item which ought to be reckoned to their credit when the final account has to be made up.
On those two grounds I suggest that this sum of £60,000,000, if it is a sum of £60,000,000, is in itself by no means excessive. Is it a sum of £60,000,000, however? In the first place, by general consent, it is a sum of £51,000,000. There is to be deducted from it, by an exceedingly intricate process of calculation, the sum of £9,000,000. Quite apart from that, is there a sum of £51,000,000, even, placed at a disposal of the railway companies? Not at all. There is an offer of £51,000,000, on this condition, that while the railway companies, by accepting that sum, are debarred from all recourse to any legal remedies which they may have under the Statutes of the Realm, the Government, on the other hand, are not. The Government, even after the sum of £51,000,000 has been assigned to the railway companies, still specifically retain the right to prosecute their claims in the Law Courts. I do not believe there ever has been in the history of the world such a case of "heads I win and tails you lose" as this proposal made by the Government. When I hear the hon. Gentleman, for whose opinion I have great respect, suggesting that this is an extremely favourable arrangement, from the point of view of the railway companies, I can only put on record my own opinion that it is an extraordinarily favourable arrangement for the State.

Major ENTWISTLE: I rise to ask a question. I know that the subject which has been raised of the amalgamation of the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company with the North Eastern Railway is not in order in this Resolution. It is, however, only an Amendment like this that we can vote, as a protest, on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman, when he had an opportunity on the Second Reading of giving us, at any rate, an indication of the attitude he was going to take on this question, did not do so. Without endeavouring in any way to infringe the rules of order, I would ask him now simply to let us know whether his mind is open on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid if the Minister did that I should have to stop him.

Major ENTWISTLE: What I want to know is whether he still has an open mind on the question. That would influence us a great deal in exercising our Vote on this particular matter.
On the subject of the £60,000,000, I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) say that all he wanted was to rely on his legal rights. I would like to ask him a question. Supposing that under the stress of war and the extraordinary conditions which often prevail, by means of an oversight or of hastiness, any agreement were entered into, the strict legal interpretation of which would conflict with the general opinion of the country, would he still argue that the railway companies ought to insist upon the absolute strict letter of their rights? If he took that attitude we should know exactly where he stood. It is not purely a question of what the legal rights are, but of what, in the general opinion of the country, is fair and equitable. I am not saying that the £60,000,000 is right, but we ought to have every satisfaction on that matter before we come to a decision on the point.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me whether I take my stand upon the strict legal rights. I would put this question to him. If he entered into a bargain with me and it turned out to his advantage and not to mine, what would he say to me if I said, "Because the bargain has resulted in your favour and not in mine is the hon.
Gentleman going to abide by his strict legal rights? "In all probability he would say, "A bargain is a bargain, and if you have entered into a bargain you must abide by it." As a matter of fact, what happened was that the State made an extraordinarily good bargain. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that railway shareholders during the 7 years of War had to bear their proportion of the increased cost of living while at the same time they have advocated that everyone who was receiving a small income should have an increase on account of the increased cost of living. The average holding of railway stock is about £1,000, and probably the average shareholder gets £30 or £40 a year. They not only received no increase, but they did not in many cases receive the income they had before the War. What did they give in return? The right hon. Gentleman says it is quite true that up to 1918 there was a profit on the carriage of goods to the Government, but he says they committed themselves to certain arrears of maintenance. How did that arise? The Government said to the railway companies, "Instead of carrying on your workshops for repairing your engines and wagons, put them at the disposal of the Government to make munitions of war," and we did it and charged nothing for it. We repaired 18-pounder shells on the Great Northern Railway at a cost of 3d. and charged the Government 3d., and Woolwich was paying 7d. How could we go on with our arrears of maintenance if we did that?

Sir E. GEDDES: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether after a short discussion, interrupted by private business, it is in order—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask by which Eule you gave the Closure at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport? May I point out this very important Motion, involving a sum of at least £60,000,000—it must be more—was interrupted at quarter past eight by Private Business, which resulted in a long Debate on a London County Council Bill. Under these circumstances, may I ask on what rule you gave the Closure?

The CHAIRMAN: The Chair uses discretion in regard to the subjects of debate, and by virtue of that discretion I accepted the Motion.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (seated and covered): May I refer you to Standing Order 23, and ask you whether it does not apply:
If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House"—

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question is, "That the Question be now put."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (seated and covered): May I continue my reference to the Standing Order? Is not the Motion an abuse of the rules of the House?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to argue that.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 45.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Armitage, Robert
Bruton, Sir James
Dawes, James Arthur


Atkey, A. R.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Elveden, Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Casey, T. W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Barlow, Sir Montague
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Forrest, Walter


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Clough, Robert
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gee, Captain Robert


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Grant, James Augustus
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Renwick, George


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Greig, Colonel James William
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Manville, Edward
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Matthews, David
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Seager, Sir William


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Higham, Charles Frederick
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hills, Major John Waller
Morris, Richard
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hinds, John
Morrison, Hugh
Sutherland, Sir William


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hood, Joseph
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Jameson, John Gordon
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Parker, James
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Winterton, Earl


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Wise, Frederick


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Pratt, John William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Purchase, H. G.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Rae, H. Norman
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Ramsden, G. T.



Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lorden, John William
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, D. D.
Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Sexton, James


Barker, Major Robert H.
Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Wignall, James


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Wintringham, Thomas


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
O'Grady, James



Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillis, William
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Waterson.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 40.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[11.9 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Casey, T. W.
Goff, Sir R. Park


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grant, James Augustus


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Armitage, Robert
Clough, Robert
Greig, Colonel James William


Atkey, A. R.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barlow, Sir Montague
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnston, Major Harry
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Higham, Charles Frederick


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dawes, James Arthur
Hills, Major John Waller


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hinds, John


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Elveden, Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hood, Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Forrest, Walter
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hurd, Percy A.


Bruton, Sir James
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gee, Captain Robert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jameson, John Gordon


Butcher, Sir John George
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Hugh
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Seager, Sir William


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Neal, Arthur
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sugden, W. H.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Parker, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lorden, John William
Perkins, Walter Frank
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Pratt, John William
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Purchase, H. G.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rae, H. Norman
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Ramsden, G. T.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Winterton, Earl


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Wise, Frederick


Manville, Edward
Reid, D. D.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Renwick, George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Matthews, David
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)



Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Dudley Ward.


Morris, Richard
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)



NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Waterson, A. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Wignall, James


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
O'Grady, James



Galbraith, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillis, William
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. T.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Sexton, James
Griffiths.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Sir E. GEDDES: rose in his place and claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

Main Question put accordingly.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. GRITTEN: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. May I ask whether, under your ruling, we cannot discuss any one of these items? I got up to ask

about the paragraph (d), and I had to resume my seat on the ruling you then gave. I resumed my seat in the anticipation that we should be able to discuss the matter later.

The CHAIRMAN: No discussion is now possible. I think it will be in order on the Report stage.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 39.

Division No. 146.]
AYES.
[11.18 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Forrest, Walter


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Butcher, Sir John George
Gee, Captain Robert


Armitage, Robert
Casey, T. W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Atkey, A. R.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Goff, Sir R. Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clough, Robert
Grant, James Augustus


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greig, Colonel James William


Barnston, Major Harry
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Dawes, James Arthur
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Edge, Captain William
Higham, Charles Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hills, Major John Waller


Breese, Major Charles E.
Elveden, Viscount
Hinds, John


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bruton, Sir James
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hood, Joseph


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Hurd, Percy A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Seager, Sir William


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Morrison, Hugh
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Jameson, John Gordon
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Neal, Arthur
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sugden, W. H.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sutherland, Sir William


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Parker, James
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Larmor, Sir Joseph
Perkins, Walter Frank
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Lindsay, William Arthur
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pratt, John William
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Lorden, John William
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Rae, H. Norman
Winterton, Earl


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Ramsden, G. T.
Wise, Frederick


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Reid, D. D.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Renwick, George
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)



Manville, Edward
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Matthews, David
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Roundel), Colonel R. F.
Dudley Ward.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur



NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Waterson, A. E.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Finney, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gillis, William
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Grady, James



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.




Shaw.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses in Scotland completed, in the case of houses as respects which any assistance is provided by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, within three years and six months, and in the case of any other houses within two years and six months of the passing of that Act, or such further period, not exceeding four months, as the Scottish Board of Health may in any special case allow, and to limit the aggregate amount of such grants in respect of houses in Scotland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland, who, I understand is in charge
of this Resolution, one or two questions with reference to the expenditure involved. I repeat what I said on a previous occasion, that it is an extremely undesirable practice on the part of the Government to introduce these Bills and Resolutions, which involve large expenditure, at an hour when it is quite impossible for hon. Members to give the attention to them which they deserve. When we attempt to criticise the Money Resolutions of the Government, and attempt to show what amount of expenditure they involve on the public purse, we do not get very much support from hon. Members who, on general occasions, pay lip service to the cause of economy, and I think it is a mistake for the Government to insist on the practice of taking such a Resolution as this after Eleven o'clock. It is permitted by Standing Order, but it is extremely undesirable, because it is impossible to give it proper examination. A White Paper has been laid, as a result of a demand made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), giving what
is estimated to be the expenditure under the provisions of this Bill. I need hardly say that, as regards the Bill itself, I am heartily in favour of it. I believe the expenditure is a good expenditure, but I believe, even in respect to good expenditure, it is the duty of the House to examine it with care, otherwise we shall never achieve reductions we have in mind. The White Paper says in the second paragraph:—
The Bill does not affect the aggregate amount of the Grant which, as provided by Section 2 of the Act, will not exceed £15,000,000 for the United Kingdom.
I suppose no one reading that would imagine this was merely a matter of machinery, and that in point of fact the Budgets of this country would be unaffected by this Resolution. That is far from the case. The aggregate amount spoken of is £15,000,000, and the amount mentioned in Section 2 of the principal Act is not an estimate at all, or a sum which has been voted by this House. It is absolutely no more than a pious aspiration of the framers of the original Act. Do not let the House go away with the idea that this particular Resolution does not involve additional expenditure. It does involve additional expenditure, though on one of the few objects for which it is justified.
Here is another point respecting this Resolution, which hon. Members really ought to give attention to if they wish comprehensibly to follow this matter. We are faced with two sorts of proposals. In the first proposal of this kind the Government say: "What is the good, whatever you are, economists or others, of objecting to such a Resolution, because the Estimate laid before the House is in effect for one year, and there is nothing in it? "What is going to happen next year? The Government will come down and say: "How can we cut down this expenditure? We had a statutory obligation laid upon us last year by Parliament, and, therefore, this is the rock bottom, and we cannot go below it." By giving statutory authority for future years we are really passing outside the control of this House that firm grip of the public purse strings that we must have if we are in earnest about trying to get expenditure reduced. I do not wish to detain the House, but I am acting in the interests of public economy, and with a determined attempt to point out where we think there
is need for it, so that in the end we may get the aggregate amount reduced. The Vote for this Grant will be found in Clause 7, Vote 3, of the ordinary Scottish Board of Health Vote, in item F (Grants for deficits)—£80,000 this year, £400,000 this year (increased estimate), and for next year, if we pass this Resolution, the amount will be—well, I do not know, but considerably larger than the amount in the estimate for this year. I think the expenditure is justified, but it is at least one that we should have some explanation of. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite was waiting for criticism before speaking? Circulars from the Treasury advising economy will be of very little use if items of this sort are not watched, and we have to see to it that we do not by Statute allow the spending of money in excess of the burden that the taxpayer can fairly bear. By passing this Resolution to-night we are taking a definite, final, and irrevocable step towards increasing the estimate laid before the House in the Budget statement of next year.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY for HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): The hon. and gallant Gentleman complains that this matter should be taken at this late hour. We were able two nights ago to take this rather earlier, and I am sorry that we did not have the assistance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion. He might have gained information that he has asked for to-night.

Captain W. BENN: When was it taken; I rather think about midnight?

Mr. PRATT: I do not think it was any later than now. However, I am delighted to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman here now, and we shall be glad to have his assistance. The sum mentioned was laid down in the Act of 1919, and all that we are asking the House to-night to do is to agree with the Committee to this extent: that the proportion due to Scotland for the further period shall be allowed. The period, so far as the general scheme of providing subsidies is concerned, has already been granted for England and Wales, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, having been granted by the Bill which has received a Third Reading, it ought also to be granted to Scotland. We are asking that there should
be a further period of twelve months. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for any more money than was indicated in the principal Act of 1919, but we are asking for an additional period to claim the money, and I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will assist us in that object.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Munro, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Pratt.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL,

"to make further provision for the extension of the time for the construction of houses in Scotland for the purpose of obtaining grants under Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, and to limit the aggregate amount of such grants in respect of houses in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, are to be printed. [Bill 129.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to extend the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920, to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions and to amend the said Act as regards the countries in respect of which it applies, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required in connection with the giving of such guarantees, so, however, that the amounts outstanding at any time in respect of credits and guarantees shall not together exceed the amount now authorised under the said Act as regards credits, and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade by reason of such extension and amendment of the said Act as aforesaid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before we pass the Report stage of this Resolution, which was very fully discussed in Committee—and I again thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) for the very lucid account which he gave us—I wish to draw attention to one of his remarks.
During the Committee stage I asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Empire of Russia was included amongst the countries to which it was intended to extend the conditions of this measure. I do not want to go over again well-beaten ground, but the House has approved of the action of the Government in attempting to open up trade with Russia to the widest possible degree. In this matter the policy of the Prime Minister has prevailed, and I hope the Government will be successful in regard to it. I inquired whether, in view of the fact that this scheme is intended to apply to those countries with collapsed exchanges, it might be extended to the great unexploited vast tracts of Russia in Europe and Asia. No less an authority than Sir George Barker has publicly stated that to-day Russia affords the greatest potential market for British goods. Sir George Barker has up to the last month or two played a prominent part in objecting to any attempt of the Government to re-open trade with Russia, and carries great weight with the Government, as of course he does with hon. Members on this side of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department told me that it was not intended at present to extend this scheme to Russia until Russia had shown some signs of wishing to honour her obligations, public and private. This old, threadbare argument about certain obligations which is not a cause jugée between ourselves and the Russian people, but which is still open for negotiation, was used for two or more years to prevent the general trade agreement being signed. I am surprised the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought out this moth-eaten, discredited argument. Since the last Debate it may interest the hon. and gallant Gentleman to know that I took the opportunity of waiting upon the head of the Russian trade delegation to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He is received at Downing Street, and I, as representing a city that has always had close trade relations with the country he represents, make no excuse for calling upon him and ascertaining his views on any matter concerning my constituency. I asked him his private opinion as to whether it would be of any advantage to the Russians if Russia were included in this scheme, and the reply I received was they did not need any such assistance from the British Government as
far as their own trade is concerned, and that as soon as certain cases in Court about the ownership of gold are decided, they will have no difficulty in this country. But I submit it would be of great advantage to the British manufacturers if Russia were included in the scheme.
I make this appeal, not from the point of view of any advantage to Russia, but solely from the point of view of the British manufacturers, who I think need assistance. The reason I will put as briefly as I possibly can. The Germans, as I fully admit, have to-day the advantage of the exchange, and they have also the advantage of their proximity to Russia itself, and the great numbers of Germans who had trading relations with Russia before the War have an advantage over the British merchants trading there to-day. Under these circumstances, anything we can do to help the British merchant in entering into this great potential market we should be ready to do, and then, of course, if any of the British commercial community feel the same compunctions as the Parliamentary Secretary about trading with people who have not fulfilled their obligations, then, of course, they need not apply to the Department of Overseas Trade for facilities. But if there are merchants who feel that, for business reasons, it would be advantageous to them to enter into these commercial relations, they ought to have the same backing as merchants wishing to trade with other countries. If we have included Austria and Bulgaria — late enemies of ours—in this scheme, why should we not include Russia? The Prime Minister has stated that the matter of the pre-War obligations of Russia will be brought up at a general Peace Conference, and if the hon. Gentleman takes it upon himself to go directly counter to that, I think we should have a little more explanation of his reasons. If he fears criticism from the City of London, I believe I am right in saying that he need have no compunction of that kind. The City has quite changed its views on this matter, and fully agrees as to the desirability of trading not only with Russia but with every other country.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I find myself, as regards Russia, in complete agreement with the Prime Minister, but that
does not leave me in equally complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not wholly follow the reasons why this should be extended to Russia. I understood before that it was difficult for Russia to trade with us without it, but to-night the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us, after consultation with a high authority, that it is not required in order to enable the Russians to buy goods from us, but in order to assist our manufacturers. I venture to think that manufacturers in any country prefer payment in cash rather than in credit, but apart from that I do not think I can do better than repeat to the House what I said in Committee—not simply on my own initiative, but as the considered counsel of the Government. In reply to a question as to why it is not proposed, at the present stage, to extend the scheme to Russia, I said:
The basis of credit must be the acceptance of the honouring of obligations whether in the immediate past or in the future. I think it would be hardly reasonable to ask the Committee at the present stage, when we do not yet know to what extent Russia is going to acknowledge obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1921; col. 773, Vol. 142.]
That is a perfectly reasonable proposal to put forward. I hope and believe that the Russian Trade Agreement will succeed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted the Prime Minister, but what, after all, did the Prime Minister say? We were anxious to get a complete settlement in the last negotiations, but it was not possible, though that was not our fault. It is true that these obligations all stand for settlement in the final Peace Treaty. We should like to get them settled up as rapidly as possible. We should have been very glad indeed to have made that settlement in the negotiations which led up to the Trade Agreement, and it does not rest with us that a completely satisfactory settlement was not arrived at.
Further, these advances which have been given hitherto, and the guarantees which are going to be given, have to be covered by a certain security, and that security, under the Act passed by this House, is submitted to an Advisory Committee. I cannot believe that, even if we were willing to extend it, the Advisory Committee would advise us to accept, or that anyone would be prepared to accept, securities, unless there was a definite proof that the country in question would
acknowledge its obligations, and the only test you can apply as to whether a country is going to acknowledge its obligations in the future is the test as to whether it honours the obligations into which it has entered in the past.

Captain W. BENN: It is very regrettable that this financial business is persistently, and, as a matter of course, pushed by the Government into these hours of the night. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions, which I shall put as briefly as possible. They are all directed to seeing how much money is being spent and whether it is wisely spent. We have already involved ourselves to-night in one Supplementary Estimate for the railways and an increased Estimate for the Scottish Office. Now we have this Vote. Here, again, from the White Paper one would judge that there was no increase above the maximum amount of £26,000,000. An hon. Member, reading that, would imagine that we had voted £26,000,000 and that this was only another way of spending it. But that is not so. The sum of £26,000,000 was the limit set in the original Act, but it is perfectly credible that a Minister might recommend expenditure to a further amount, and as soon as the Supplementary Estimate passed the House it would override the original Act. So that there is something very misleading about these White Papers, all of which suggest that what the Government is asking for is not increased expenditure, but only expenditure under the limits of the sum already voted. There are three questions which I want to ask. The first is, will the increased powers given by the Bill—when we see it—mean that the Estimate for £5,000,000 taken under the clamped services No. 10 will be exceeded for the year, or is it only a way of enabling the Department to make use of the credit granted? We have had the Estimate in the Budget that £5,000,000 of credit should be granted this year. If we are going to give these large powers to the Department, are we going to be asked for a further Estimate in order to enable the Department to exercise these powers? The second question is whether any bad debts have been made by the Department? Has credit been granted, and has it been proved that the money is irrecoverable? Those are ordinary business points. I daresay some bad debts
might easily be made, but I think we might know whether any have been made, and, if so, to what amount.
The third question is, exactly how much credit has been granted, and what is the cost of the staff engaged in granting it? The reason I ask that is because I rather fancy that the National Expenditure Committee, when they examined this Department, put their finger on this spot and pointed out that, for the granting of a comparatively small business facility, a large expenditure was taking place on the staff, incommensurate with the facilities provided. Therefore, I would ask these three questions: first of all, will the extended powers cause the hon. Gentleman to come to the House and ask for a Supplementary Estimate; secondly, have amounts granted in credit proved irrecoverable in fact; and thirdly, what is the annual cost, say, for this year, of the staff required to distribute the credit of £5,000,000 which has been presented to Parliament and which, I suppose, will be voted in Committee of Supply?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the White Paper gives the information in a perfectly accurate form. The payments involved are not in excess of the amount of money in the Estimate, and I do not propose to ask for an increase. As a matter of fact, the method of doing this business by guarantees will actually be much more economical to the State than by way of advances. The second question, I think, was whether there have been any bad debts. No; I do not think there have been any bad debts up to the present. Of course, it is impossible to say whether advances which are repayable in two or three years will be fully discharged. In all cases a security is being taken and a commission is being charged which is estimated to be sufficient to cover risks and we have the advantage of a very strong advisory committee. It is not proposed to extend the staff, and the commission that is charged will, I think, be sufficient to cover the whole cost of the Department.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is there any probability in the near future of Greece being included in the scheme?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think at present there is any chance.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Hilton Young.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to extend the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920, to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions, and otherwise to amend Sections one and three of this Act," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time
upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'clock.